text:
Food & Beverage

Ensuring proper cold chain management

The cold chain that stretches from producers to consumers through processing, manufacturing, packaging, storage and distribution is the key to ensuring the quality, safety and profitability of Food and Beverage.

From simple warehousing to complex food processing plants, Trane develops appropriate integrated low temperature systems meeting the air distribution, temperature, humidity and filtration requirements while complying with good engineering practices and local codes.

Unique cooling loads based on extreme conditions require high efficiency chillers at full and part load. Using glycol or brine solutions allows close control of indoor conditions and full capacity use of the optimized cooling coils.

Downtime is not an option. The reliability of the system is the result of optimizing design, equipment, installation and maintenance issues.

In the Food and Beverage industry, the HVAC system is paramount. This includes integration of several components like chillers, pumps, air distribution, temperature and humidity controls. And when planned shutdowns, emergencies or production peaks occur, Trane Rental Services have the expertise and equipment to substantially mitigate risk to food and beverage production.

Contact us today to discuss how Trane Food & Beverage Solutions can benefit your current and future operation.

Search for more product material: Litweb

Contact Request Form


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Commons:Category inclusion criteria

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Commons, like Wikipedia, shouldn't have an indiscriminate number of categories. Most of those listed at Wikipedia:Overcategorization apply here apart from SHAREDNAME since topic categories function in a similar way to Wikipedia articles. For this reason on a disambiguation page a category for the surname will be included such as Category:Lincoln includes Category:Lincoln (surname) where people with that surname can be found.

Most of the time, if you think a topic category shouldn't exist this is because the topic isn't notable. If this is the case then you should probably first nominate the files in the category for deletion; then if the category is emptied as a result it can simply be deleted as empty.

Since many "set" categories shouldn't directly contain any (or many) images directly it is generally not helpful, for example (per SMALLCAT), to have a category for "X in Y" when there are only a few Xs in Y. For example, there are only 2 cities in Devon and since any images should be added directly to those categories (unless possibly files discussing both as cities but that's unlikely and those could still probably simply be added to both individual categories instead) a Category:Cities in Devon wouldn't be helpful. That said, topic categories can and often do only currently contain a few images such as Category:Brosdale Island, currently (as of May 2020) containing only 2 images but anyone could upload dozens of images about the island and all could be added to the category and suddenly it would have hundreds of images. Similarly, a category for "Churches in X" is probably not a good idea of X only has 1 (or a few churches). Since churches usually are taken as notable, any images for them should be added to the topic categories for them. However a category for "Buildings in X" probably is a good idea since X probably has hundreds of buildings and some might not be considered notable enough to have separate categories here.

General criteria[edit]

Generally, a category is appropriate for Commons if any of the following hold:

  • The category contains a reasonably large number of images or other pages (use 10 as a rule of thumb, but there is not yet a consensus on this matter).
  • The category has a subcategory.
  • The category has a Wikipedia article and/or clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.
  • The category is part of a diffusion scheme, and at least one of its sibling categories meets any of the other criteria above.

These apply to topic categories, the Wikipedia guideline mainly focuses on set categories. Sometimes these might be excluded by reasons on the Wikipedia guideline such as arbitrary inclusion criteria even though they have a Wikipedia article, for example Category:North Britain was deleted at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:North Britain even though w:North Britain still has an article because "North Britain" doesn't have a definite meaning and thus different parts of Britain could be added to it depending on the editor's view on what is northern. However as noted the category could be re created if we have media specifically discussing the idea of what "North Britain" is.

Unlike Wikipedia, which attempts to determine prima facie notability based on coverage in external sources, the decision to subcategorize on Commons is often driven by the needs of Commons itself. For widely photographed locations such as national parks, it may make sense to have a category for each attraction even though they might not be notable enough for individual Wikipedia articles. If a parent category is a very widely photographed object, such as the Eiffel Tower, it may make sense to subcategorize by decade or even by year. But please do not do this for every subject, only those that need diffusion; use editorial discretion.

An example of a diffusion scheme is Category:Water reflections of clouds in the United States by state. Clearly, Category:Water reflections of clouds in New York (state) has enough images to warrant a category, so Category:Water reflections of clouds in Iowa is appropriate despite having only one image in it.

See also[edit]

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-81.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
Regular Savings

Perfect for regularly saving money for unexpected bills, emergencies or for a future treat.

Holiday Savings

We all like to get away for a holiday, so you can arrange to have a separate savings 'pot' for holiday spends.

Child Benefit Savings

Put aside your child benefit to pay for things like school uniforms, school trips or any unexpected expense.

Bill Payment Account

If you’re paid weekly but pay bills monthly you can set aside weekly savings to cover your bills.

Children's Savings

A great way to help kids develop a sensible attitude to saving and money handling skills essential in adult life.

Christmas Savings

Christmas soon rolls round every year! Wouldn't it be nice to have all your Christmas spending money ready?

PrizeSaver Account

Saving feels good, winning feels great! You can do both with a PrizeSaver account.


text:
Volver al foro de Sudán

Study on social support and mentoring

Publicado en Foro de Sudán

Dear expat community in Sudan,

I would like to kindly invite you to participate in a survey that I am conducting as part of an academic study at the Friedrich-Alexander University in Nuremberg, Germany.

The aim of the study is to explore how social support and mentoring influence the cultural adjustment process. Therefore I am surveying expatriates and former expatriates worldwide.

It would be great if you would take 15 minutes to share some of your experiences by answering a set of questions concerning your most recent expatriate assignment. The survey can be accessed through the link below:

The survey is completely anonymous, there is no way to identify you or your organization.

Your help will be highly appreciated. Feedback or other comments are also welcome :)

Thank you very much in advance.

Carina Dittrich
Master student of International Business Studies
Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg

  • Carina Dittrich

    publicado por  en Foro de Sudán

    Dear Expats,

    thank you very much to those who already participated in my survey.

    Since the data collection is not finished yet, I would be very happy about further participants.

    Thank you very much for your willingness to support my research.

    Carina Dittrich

  • Carina Dittrich

    publicado por  en Foro de Sudán

    Please copy the link to the survey and paste it into your internet browser

Publicar una respuesta


text:
No Credit Test Up To 10 000

From Community Action Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Anybody, who is running into a very bad credit scenario, feels burden and stress the right way to run the household in a clean manner. If you have weighed up your choices and are considering a same-day personal loan, but lack excellent credit history, a short term mortgage is likely to be an possibility. The Government's MoneySmart web site shows you how small quantity loans work and suggests other options which will make it easier to. The Australian Government's MoneySmart web site exhibits you ways small amount loans work and suggests different options that will help you. Underneath the CSO model, payday lenders get hold of loans through a third-party, restricted liability" company that expenses 10 % annual interest.

Take care to choose an established and respected payday loan company, as there are sadly many working who try to exploit individuals by applying incredibly high penalty prices for any late cost, making it extraordinarily exhausting to ever pay the loans again. There are numerous other methods to borrow money in case you are not assured with the credit score test requirement. Some payday mortgage providers have attracted very poor publicity up to now. If you don't pay your balances on time, there's a danger of continuing your debt for an indefinite interval.

If you are in a financial chaos and shouldn't have any credit score historical past, the chances of buying funds tend to be minimised. As a result of people care only about their very own butt, and that came from a steady weight-reduction plan fed to them by corporate mass media to turn everyone into a parasitic cockroach, who put extra value on worthless IOU promise to pay FIAT money, than they do about their very own life and the life of planet earth.

Once you need that payday mortgage urgently, it's frustrating to have your loan declined repeatedly. On-line lenders can provide private loans much faster than traditional lenders. Please keep in mind that late funds lead to extra curiosity in your mortgage over time. Payday lenders normally cost a payment as an alternative of an interest rate. In case in case you have financial downside for a brief time period then same payday loans might help you to beat this monetary crunch.

In contrast to other mortgage providers, wherein the application and funding process can take days, if not weeks, the short nature of the same day loans 1000 ( officially announced) day mortgage is its most interesting function. The business loans are made accessible for few months to 3-4 years; the options are- secured business loan or unsecured business mortgage. We encourage you to examine with them earlier than you apply for a Spotloan. Not a deferred presentment transaction, not a payday loan, not a credit score entry business, and apparently not topic to Texas laws.

Not an excessive amount of individuals have ample reductions to cowl a giant expense, thus until your automobile packs it in in your payday, you' ll probably need to have to accumulate the cashto get it corrected. When you finalize the agreement, the lender will deposit the funds into your checking account as quickly as the following business day. Earlier than applying, she used Moneysmart's payday loan calculator to see how much the mortgage would cost her. In truth, you'll be able to always rely on any of your most well-liked finest rates mortgage company or lenders.

Payday loans are quick-time period lending often utilized by individuals to tide them over until payday. This does not mean you are not eligible for certainly one of our private loans. This could also be true for Wizzcash loans, if all repayments are met as scheduled. Everyone seems to be doing his or her business online, and visiting an area store isn't wanted like it was once. When searching for loans on-line it will be important which you can distinguish the legit lenders from the scammers.

To make getting a same day loan as fast and straightforward as attainable, the identical day mortgage direct lenders our companion options on their panel have all strived to make the complete software course of as fast and direct as potential. It means, persons are utilizing all of the sources to satisfy out the expenses but they fail to manage them on the time payment that pulls down their credit score score. Understanding the distinction between bank money accounts and mutual funds and what you use them for.

Nonetheless, you could carefully choose which loan you want earlier than making use of for it. Unsecured loans similar to payday loans, credit cards, brief-time period, and different comparable types may be great throughout emergencies. The businessperson can easily go through serps throughout spare time at their workplace and evaluate the mortgage rates of various loan companies. Auto title loans are usually processed on exactly the same day which they're utilized for, that means that you could be stroll out with money in a relatively short interval.

Subsequently, you possibly can acquire the money you seek by this loans regardless of what your credit score score is. By regulation, payday lenders must lend responsibly. These no credit verify loans are unsecured and the most popular loan sort are due on your next payday. Identical day loans. Earlier than you decide on any loan, it's all the time vital to ensure that you perceive the workings and design of the payday loans on-line same day. The lenders in UK are laying just a few standards on the applicant for the logbook loans.


text:
Skip to main content

Between fragmentation and institutionalisation: the rise of migration studies as a research field

A Correction to this article was published on 24 August 2020

This article has been updated

It is clear that the field of migration studies has grown significantly over the past decades. What is less known is how this growth has taken place. This article combines bibliometric metadata with expert interviews to analyse the institutionalisation of the field in terms of self-referentiality, internationalisation, and epistemic communities. Self-referentiality in migration studies has gradually increased as the field has grown, until recently. The field has internationalised in terms of international co-authorships but has done so unevenly. Finally, we find that epistemic communities in migration studies, based largely on disciplines, increasingly refer to one another and are increasingly interdisciplinary.

We know that the field of migration studies has grown significantly over the past decades (Pisarevskaya et al. 2019). This is manifest in the increase of the number of publications, journals, research institutes and undergraduate programs. This development in size says something on the relevance as well as the popularity of migration studies. What is less known is how this growth of migration studies has taken place. Does this growth involve an institutionalisation of migration research field as a research field? Or has growth come with a growing fragmentation of studies on migration? Our aim in this article is to provide empirical reflections on this process. There are studies that look at specific aspects of this process, for instance in terms of interdisciplinarity (Bommes and Morawska 2005), theoretical (Massey et al. 1998; Cohen, 1996) and methodological (King 2012; Vargas-Silva 2012) developments, but research with a holistic approach is lacking. Our research question, therefore, is how has migration studies institutionalised in the past four decades?

We examine institutionalisation from a three-fold perspective, drawing on migration studies and sociology of science literature. Firstly, we analyse self-referentiality – the extent to which researchers on migration refer to one another. Then we study internationalisation – the extent to which migration researchers have collaborated across countries and continents. The third aspect we analyse are epistemic communities – groups of scholars congregated around certain themes, methods, disciplines, or concepts. Together, these three dimensions provide a comprehensive understanding of developments in the migration studies field in terms of both structures and cultures of knowledge production (cf. Kuhn 2012; Hess, 1997).

We investigate the institutionalisation of migration studies by mapping 48,842 migration-related Web of Science records (1975–2018) in the VOSViewer software (van Eck and Waltman 2009), namely by looking at when, where, and between whom collaboration and citation networks have occurred. Furthermore we interpret these collaborations and citation networks through qualitative insights gathered from interviews with long-standing experts in the field and from secondary literature. Thus, we pursue an iterative approach which triangulates between quantitative data, qualitative interviews, and literature.

There are at least three reasons why study of the institutionalisation of the field is important. First, for scholars who are potentially immersed in their own sub-fields or disciplines, this study provides an historical overview of the development of the broader migration research field. This expands one’s horizons on what is out there in migration studies beyond one’s epistemic milieu. As migration scholars, we cannot understand where we are without seeing how we got there. This is not without limitations of course. Web of Science’s coverage of the social sciences and especially the humanities is limited compared to the natural sciences (see Aksnes and Sivertsen 2019), therefore the bibliometrics offer an approximation which is complemented by experts’ input. Second, interdisciplinarity (Borkert 2018; Brettell and Hollifield 2015) and internationalisation (Thränhardt and Bommes 2010) are increasingly promoted as the means of scientific innovation. Therefore, a state of the art and historical re-tracing of these processes is needed. Third, since research is widely perceived as fragmented given the rapid growth of migration studies, it is necessary to see whether the claim of fragmentation is supported by bibliometric evidence.

The development of research fields

Research fields are institutionalised areas of study that build on as well as contribute to one or several disciplines. They have a specific thematic focus and a specific research infrastructure (such as their own conferences, institutes and educational programmes). A key question is whether migration studies has institutionalised as a research field, and if so, how its focus (culture of knowledge production) as well as infrastructure (structure of knowledge production) have taken shape. By “structure”, we refer to how research is organised geographically, organisationally (including financially), and in terms of publication venues (e.g. journals). “Culture” in knowledge production here refers to how researchers “organically” or even unintentionally cluster around themes, disciplines, and even structures as they are referred to above, forming, in other words, epistemic communities (Knorr, 1999).

Before analysing its development, it is important to define what constitutes ‘migration studies’. Here we take a definition that follows King (2012): migration studies encompasses research on all types of international and internal migration, migrants, and migration-related diversities. When mentioning research on migration, this paper is referring to all of these aspects. Although its origins lie with Ravenstein (1885) and early twentieth-century sociology, such as Thomas and Znaniecki (1918), this field has emerged with its own journals and institutes since the 1960s, with intensified growth since the 1990s (Pisarevskaya et al. 2019).

Institutionalisation can be explored through the phenomenon of self-referentiality (Shinn 2002, pp. 600–601). If migration researchers regularly refer to one another, then they are likely to share a common theoretical language and explicit or implicit expectations underpinning their research practices, which is an indicator of institutionalisation (cf. Scott 2008). The following two aspects delve more deeply into the where and how questions of institutionalisation. Given the peculiarity of the subject of migration as a global phenomenon, it is especially important to consider the internationalisation of knowledge production (Winter 2014). Studying migration from only a national perspective, as several critiques during the 2000s observed (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2003; Thränhardt and Bommes 2010; Favell 2003; 2015), inhibits our epistemological understanding of migration. Then, analysing epistemic communities provides us with an understanding of the field’s institutionalisation by revealing a potential array of organically emerging sub-fields, or paradigms (Kuhn 2012), focused around specific disciplines or themes. Taken together, these three aspects give us further insight into the theoretical maturity of the field that we previously theorised (Pisarevskaya et al. 2019).

In this study, we take an iterative approach to theory-building. In order to develop expectations for the empirical bibliometric analysis, we combine theory from published literature with information gathered from the expert interviews with long-standing scholars in migration studies (see Methods section). Below, we present the debates regarding the three aspects of institutionalisation mentioned above.

Knowledge production on migration has occurred for over a century (see Greenwood and Hunt 2003), encompassing a number of research traditions and methodologies (Brettell and Hollifield 2015; Bommes and Morawska 2005; Vargas-Silva, 2012). The field has grown significantly in recent decades (Pisarevskaya et al. 2019), to the extent that one might consider the present not only to be an “age of migration” (Castles et al. 2014), but an “age of migration studies” (Hatton 2011).

There is no clear consensus on how the growth of the field relates to the level of self-referentiality in migration studies. On one hand, some commentators note fragmentation in the field. They observe a lack of “synthesis” between different approaches, disciplines, and levels of analysis (Penninx et al. 2008, p. 8; Kritz et al., 1981; Massey et al. 1998; King 2012; Scholten et al. 2015, pp. 331–335). On the other hand, recent studies find that this thesis may be overstated. Topical analysis of the field suggests that it has a rather unified and stable conceptual and theoretical foundation, observed in increasing connectedness of topics in the past decade (Pisarevskaya et al. 2019).

Moreover, efforts to give structure to the field in recent decades may have led to a standardisation of norms and practices. For example, several migration-focused journals have been established during and since the 1990s (Pisarevskaya et al. 2019). Some of our expert interviewees noted the concerted efforts throughout the 1990s to formalise research on migration (see also Thränhardt and Bommes 2010). This included the establishment of a migration programme (1994) in the US by the Social Science Research Council (SSRC); the Network of Migration Research on Africa (NoMRA) in 1998; and a series of migration research institutes in Europe, including the Centre for Race and Ethnic Relations (CRER, Warwick), Institute for Migration & Ethnic Studies (IMES, Amsterdam), Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS, Osnabrück), the Sussex Centre for Migration Research, and many more since, leading to the founding of the IMISCOE network (2004).

We therefore expect (E1) that our analysis of citation patterns will reconfirm the findings of the topic analysis of Pisarevskaya et al (2019). Despite intensified growth in the volume of knowledge in migration studies, the field has evolved from a disparate set of publications in the 1970s, into an increasingly self-referential field of study from the 1990s on.

Since the 2000s, much has been written on the ontological and political consequences of “national model” (Bertossi and Duyvendak 2012) or “national paradigm” (Thränhardt and Bommes 2010) structures of knowledge production in migration studies. This is also linked to critiques of “methodological nationalism” (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2003; Favell 2003; 2015). Migration research has traditionally been connected to national histories, policies, and narratives of migration, as well as languages, enshrined by established funding procedures and sources of empirical data, i.e. national censuses. Given these discussions and the increasing digitisation of knowledge infrastructures enabling easier international communication, one might expect a concurrent increase in cross-country collaborations (cf. Winter 2014). While cross-country collaborations may not necessarily mean the end of national paradigms, continued scientific co-operation across borders facilitates a broadening of conceptual and theoretical perspectives, a softening of national models, and, perhaps, a globalisation of migration theory.

Research policy and funding structures also play a role in internationalisation which can lead to an unevenness of this process across the globe (see Carling, 2015). For example, in the European Union, knowledge production has become “Europeanised” (Geddes and Scholten 2015). Research on migration has been co-ordinated cross-nationally in large part through IMISCOE, an EU Network of Excellence established in 2004, which has operated independently since 2009. We expect this initiative to have contributed to weakening national paradigms in this region. However, the interviewees remarked that due to a tendency to publish in their own language, French, and to a lesser extent, German migration research might not be as transnational as other European countries, including in the post-2004 “IMISCOE” era.

Where English is generally the lingua franca of western migration research, the linguistic diversity in Asian scholarship, according to one interviewee, means that a network such as IMISCOE has not taken off to the same extent. Another interviewee points out that although NoMRA exists for all of Africa, its activity has been concentrated in five key countries: Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, and South Africa. According to this interviewee, such countries, due to limited domestic research funding, may avoid national paradigms, given the international nature of both their funding and research collaborations (see also van den Boom 2010). In the USA, as the country which produces more migration research than any other, there have been attempts to internationalise, but, as some interviewees commented, these have largely failed, due to a tendency to replicate American conceptualisations in foreign contexts. Meanwhile, as one interviewee noted, the establishment of the Metropolis network in Canada in the 1990s has led to a number of fruitful international collaborations between there and other – mainly European – nations.

In general, we expect that migration studies has become an internationalised field since the turn of the century, but not an entirely globalised one (E2). We expect migration studies to have become more internationalised in most European countries, Canada, and in some African countries, but to have internationalised to a lesser extent in the USA, France, Germany, and most Asian countries (E3).

Epistemic communities

Analysis of epistemic communities gives us an insight into the cultures of knowledge production in migration studies over the years. By ‘epistemic communities’, we refer to networks of scholars that have emerged (and disappeared) around certain topics, concepts, approaches, or disciplines.

There has been a long-standing question of whether or not migration studies is truly interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary.Footnote 1 Given that migration studies is a research area that is approached from different disciplines, it is interesting to consider whether the “virtually unbreakable” structure of those disciplines (Abbott 2001, p. 149) has remained, or become less rigid over time, indicating cross-disciplinary osmosis. Over the past two decades, Brettell and Hollifield (2000, 2008, 2015) have invoked this discussion in their three editions of Migration Theory, arguing that by now we see more interchange among disciplines. However, Favell (2003; 2015, p. 319), in his epilogue to the latest edition, argues that Europe is more “post-disciplinary” than elsewhere. This may be related to the incentivisation of interdisciplinarity in major funding organisations, such as the European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme (see European Union 2016).

On this basis, we expect to find that up until the 1990s, researchers of migration were divided according to disciplinary structures. From the 1990s onwards, we expect to find cross-disciplinary osmosis and the breaking down of these divisions (E4).

The published research suggesting concrete developments in the fieldin this regard is rather limited. We do know, however, that there is a plurality of paradigms employed in migration research, revolving, for instance, around opposing sides of the ‘dyads’ in migration studies that Cohen (1996) identifies, such as internal versus international migration. They may also be tied to more specific themes such as second-generation migrants, gender and migration, or the governance of migration-related diversity (cf. Portes 1997; King 2012). Analysis of such evolutions can be conducted through a multitude of lenses. Therefore we take an iterative approach using the qualitative input of our expert interviewees to trace some interesting patterns. By no means, we claim this description to be exhaustive, however, it still provides valuable insights into some key developments in the field. These include the examination of paradigmatic divides in the field such as Cohen’s ‘dyads’ (1996); the questions of primacy of certain topics i.e. a claim that migration studies’ have emerged from the ‘shadows’ of ethnic and racial studies in the 1970s–1990s; the proliferation of transnationalism from the mid-1990s onwards; and the “cultural turn” of migration research from being predominantly quantitative and demographic-focused, towards more nuanced qualitative studies of migration (E5).

This article employs an iterative approach combining bibliometric analysis of Web of Science data, using the VOSviewer software, and qualitative data gathered from 10 interviews with long-standing experts in migration studies. The metadata were collected from the Web of Science index on 12 March 2019. We used Erasmus University Rotterdam’s subscription, which has access to records going back to 1975. We conducted an English-language complex query (see Annex) to gather our data. This generated 48,842 items, which are displayed per year in Figure 1. These include journal articles, editorials, comentaries, and reviews, but unfortunately not books. However, as this articel is concerned with general trends in the field not with analysis of the most infuential publications, as Sirkeci et al (2017, pp. 399-403) have already done, this is not a major limitation. The publications are produced by 44,286 different authors, publishing in 1512 different sources, based at 9052 different organisations, in 185 countries. See details about trends over time for each of these aspects in the Annex.

Bibliometric data provide empirical evidence of the structure and culture of the field, and interviews help us to interpret the data (cf. Gläser et al. 2017). Because they were conducted before the bibliometric analysis, the interviews served a double purpose of (i) developing, as seen above, our theoretical expectations, and (ii) of elaborating our qualitative interpretations of the data (cf. Charmaz 2001).

Expert interviews

To enrich our knowledge of the development of migration studies, expert interviews were conducted between March and May 2019. In total, 10 experts were selected. The criterion for the selection of the experts was that they had published commentaries or been instrumental in the development or institutionalisation of migration studies, whether globally or locally. Our interviewees have worked in Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North America, and Oceania.

• Prof. Aderanti Adepoju
Founder, Network of Migration Research on Africa (Lagos)
• Prof. Stephen Castles
Former Director, International Migration Institute (Oxford)
• Dr. Yuk Wah Chan
Organiser, Network for Asian Migration Studies (Hong Kong)
• Dr. Josh DeWind
Director of Migration Program, Social Science Research Council (New York)
• Prof. James Hollifield
Director, Tower Center, Southern Methodist University (Dallas)
• Prof. Russell King
Former Director, Sussex Centre for Migration Research (Brighton)
• Prof. Peggy Levitt
Co-founder, Global (De) Centre (Cambridge, MA / Florence)
• Prof. Douglas Massey
Co-director, Mexican Migration Project (Princeton)
• Prof. Rinus Penninx
Founder, IMISCOE Network of Excellence (Amsterdam)
• Prof. Steven Vertovec
Director, Max-Planck-Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity (Göttingen)

The interviews followed a semi-structured format in which the interviewees were asked in advance to prepare their ideas on the following themes in migration studies: institutionalisation; internationalisation; interdisciplinarity; key concepts, publications, authors, and institutes; and defining periods in the history of the field. The interviews ranged from 45 min to 2 h in length. We coded and summarised the key points related to each theme, by interviewee, in a spreadsheet.

Bibliometric analysis

We conducted various analyses using VOSviewer (v.1.6.7 and v.1.6.11; van Eck and Waltman 2009) to probe our theoretical expectations. We explored the bibliometric and citation trends over time, to determine whether migration studies has become more or less self-referential, international, and/or, by the standard of our analytical framework, institutionalised, including multiple epistemic communities.

For measuring how self-referential the dataset was, we conducted citation analyses at both document and source level. A citation analysis looks at the citations between documents and sources within the dataset, regardless of citing direction. If a large body of literature such as this one, sharing a thematic focus, is not at the document level, we analysed the proclivity of documents with 30 or more citations in the dataset (N = 3466) to cite one another. By only analysing highly-cited papers (HCPs, see Plomp 1990), we focus on the ‘influential core’ of the field. While this method also has a bias in terms of emphasising older documents that have had more time to gather citations (Nakamura et al. 2011), increased overall self-referentiality, controlled for by the overall number of HCPs, could indicate the institutionalisation of the field. A source-level analysis usually considers citations between journals (N = 1431). This tells us whether, with a growing number of journals (see Additional file 1), the field became fragmented.

For sources, we conducted an additional analysis of network density. This gives an indication of how self-referential the field has been compared to how self-referential it could theoretically have been. By adding each consecutive year to the starting year, we calculated the density of the citation network using a slightly adjusted version of the formula employed by Reagans and McEvily (2003):

Where D is density, and t indicates the period from 1975 until each of the consequent year. The cumulative potential number of links is calculated using this formula:

$$ {P}_t=\frac{N_t\ast \left({N}_t-1\right)}{2},\kern0.5em \mathrm{where}\ \mathrm{N}\ \mathrm{is}\ \mathrm{a}\ \mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{number}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{sources}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{period}\kern0.5em t. $$

The internationalisation of the field was measured by the likelihood of migration scholars to collaborate across borders. This provides a more meaningful view of internationalisation than merely studying the increase in diversity of countries producing migration research. For this reason, we follow Yarime et al. (2010), and operationalise collaboration as co-authorship. An increased proclivity to co-author internationally could potentially indicate that the weakening of national paradigms in migration research.

This analysis was limited to the years 1998–2018, because VOSviewer was only able to identify sufficient geographic metadata from 1998 onwards (Fig. 1). To measure the proportion of transnationally-structured research, we divided the total annual number of international co-authorships by the total annual number of articles containing geographic metadata. We did this analysis per countryFootnote 2 as well as globally.

Fig. 1

Number of items, per year, in migration studies dataset based on advanced query of Web of Science, 12 March 2019

Finally, to explore the development of epistemic communities, we used co-citation analyses at the author level. This type of analysis allows us look behind the tapestry of citations in migration studies, and understand which authors constitute the reference bases for the literature. Co-citation network maps display the links between authors from within or beyond the dataset that are cited together in the documents within the dataset. In other words, these maps unveil latent communities of scholars who have been linked together by others. For feasibility reasons, we set the threshold to authors who have received 10 or more citations. This way we exclude authors who have influenced the field to a lesser extent.

We did this in five year increments (1975-1979; 1980-1984, and so on, with the exception of the final period, 2015-2018). The network files exported from VOSviewer can be found in the Harvard Dataverse (see Levy, et al., 2020). Following our iterative logic, this enabled us to analyse the data in the same terms – i.e. “early 1980s”, “late 1990s” – as our interviewees described their perception of the field’s development. VOSviewer clusters the authors according to how often they are cited together. We take these clusters to approximate the variety of epistemic communities within the field in each period. To assign labels, we used Google Scholar to find the unifying features of each cluster. We checked the research of each cluster’s most-cited authors, and the first-page results (usually the authors’ higher-cited works) enabled us to grasp their conceptual, thematic, or disciplinary focus. We triangulated this information with the reflections shared by our expert interviewees.

We supplemented the qualitative analysis of co-citation networks with a few basic quantitative network measures. Concretely, in each period of time we measured the size of the reference basis (in terms of total number of authors co-cited), the density of co -citation networks, and the average path length, to examine the epistemic communities’ connectedness to one another across time.

Here it is worth repeating that bibliometrics offer an empirical approximation of the development of the field. Due to the limitations of using Web of Science data, our analysis may underestimate the contributions that historians and anthropologists have made to the field, as well as researchers publishing in languages other than English. This is, in part, why the bibliometric analysis is combined with expert input.

Results and analysis

Despite intensified growth in the volume of knowledge in migration studies, we expected to see the field become increasingly self-referential over the past four decades, particularly during and after the 1990s. In line with our previous work (Pisarevskaya et al. 2019), we indeed see intensified growth in the number of publications (Fig. 1), authors, organisations, sources, and countries (Additional file 1) publishing on migration, especially since the mid-2000s. In line with our expectation, Fig. 2 shows that, over time, the overall likelihood of research in our dataset to cite other research in our dataset has increased. This is the case for both highly-cited documents (HCPs), and for sources.

Fig. 2

Inter-HCP and inter-source citation rates

Figure 3 shows the analysis of actual citation links versus potential citation links at the source level. From the mid-1970s (0.02%, or 6 out of 11,000 potential links) until the late 2000s (0.65%, or 888 out of 138,000 potential links), a gradually higher and higher proportion of the potential citation connections within migration research sources were exploited. Since the late 2000s, the network density has stagnated and gradually declined. The reason for this negative trend in recent years is possibly related to “citation lag”, whereby influential research, particularly in interdisciplinary fields, does not tend to begin accumulating citations for around 5 years (Nakamura et al. 2011, pp. 228–230). While the stagnation in the years 2008–2013 could be due to an exponential growth in the number of sources (see Fig. 4).

Fig. 3

Density of citation links between sources (journals) in migration studies, 1975–2018

Fig. 4

Number of publication sources, per year 1975–2018

Taken together, these findings give support to our expectation (E1). By looking at influential papers and sources publishing on migration, we see that the field has generally become more self- referential, which indicates a trend towards institutionalisation. However, when the self-referentiality of the sources is compared against a theoretical threshold of all possible connections, we see that the percentage of actual citation links increases up to a point. Since the late 2000s, the proliferation of sources has intensified to much higher extent than have the actual inter-source connections. This does not necessarily undermine the process of institutionalisation; it may simply be due to citation lag, or indeed it could be related to the mainstreaming of migration research ‘back’ into traditional disciplines. The epistemic communities section will elaborate on this.

We expected migration studies to have internationalised, but to have done so unevenly. As Fig. 5 shows, we see that the overall proclivity of migration researchers to collaborate internationally has significantly increased over time, particularly since the mid-2000s. In 1998 there were 38 international co-authorship links, representing 47 countries, across 726 articles. In 2018, there were 636 international co-authorship links, representing 104 countries, across 2767 articles. In other words, around 5% of migration research published in 1998 was cross-nationally co-authored, and around 23% in 2018. Figure 6 visualises this development in terms of the most strongly connected countries. The size of a node reflects the respective country’s number of cross-national co-authorships. The thickness of a link reflects the number of co-authorships between the countries at either end.

Fig. 5

Number of international co-authorships, controlled for number of documents, 1998–2018

Fig. 6

Visualisations of cross-national co-authorship links in 1998 - top and 2018 – bottom

A deeper probing of the data unveils an uneven internationalisation taking place (Table 1). We see that among the two regions with the largest overall output the trend of internationalisation is substantially stronger in Europe than in North America. In Europe, despite linguistic diversity, critiques of national paradigms have perhaps landed on fertile soil. Research policy at the European level has particularly played a role in this. For example, in the 2000s the European Union’s FP6 introduced Networks of Excellence (NoE; see de Baas and Vallés 2007) and established the IMISCOE NoE. Our interviewees regarded this as a key turning point for internationalisation. Furthermore, FPs since then have encouraged international collaboration.

Table 1 International co-authorships by region, 1998–2018 (only countries with over 30 articles)

In Asia and Oceania, a significant amount of research is also internationally co-authored, but the volume of output is much lower. As for Middle Eastern, African, and South American countries, there is an even lower volume of research, but with a much higher proportion of international co-authorships in Sub-Saharan Africa and South America. Relatively little Middle Eastern migration scholarship is internationally co-authored. These disparities are very likely down to the English-language focus of our dataset, or also the extent of Web of Science’s coverage of journals in developing countries. Nevertheless, what this analysis shows is that perhaps there is a relationship between international collaborations in Asia, Africa, and South America, and the probability of being published in English-speaking international journals.

Delving into the country details (Table 2), to our surprise, we can see that German and French migration scholarship is overall among the most internationally collaborative (51%). However, since a large body of French- and German-language literature is probably not included in our dataset, this indicator may be limited.

Table 2 Countries with >40 international co-authorships 1998-2018

As expected, among North American countries, the proclivity to collaborate was comparatively lower. For example, the United States, the high absolute number of international co-authorships comprise a relatively low percentage (13%) of its overall extensive output. To illustrate this trend, our interviewees gave the example of the Social Science Research Council’s International Migration programme, which, despite aiming at internationalisation, was rather US-centric, replicating US-developed concepts and theories (Portes and DeWind, 2004, pp. 845–847). Canada is somewhat more internationally collaborative, which is possibly due to its historical involvement in the Metropolis International Network, which was emphasised by several interviewees.

South Africa and Nigeria have been leading African countries in terms of publications and international co-authorships. Especially in the past decade, these have been joined by Kenya, Mozambique and Ghana (see Levy, et al., 2020), where migration research institutes have recently been established. This is in line with the perception of our interviewees.

In Asian scholarship, as Table 2 shows, there are a large number of cross-national collaborations involving China. This is likely related to international interest in the country’s ‘floating population’, as the world’s biggest case of internal migration (see Xiang and Tan 2005). Singapore, Japan and Taiwan are also among the most internationally collaborative Asian countries. Our interviewees regarded these as migration research hubs, for instance due to the migration focus of the Asia Research Institute at the National University of Singapore.

To sum up, the absolute and relative increase in international co-authorships in migration studies might be a consequence of the critiques of national paradigms which emerged in the early 2000s, although the structural context may have facilitated this trend (cf. Henke 2001, p. 595). In this period, the digitisation of science has provided the general context in which internationalisation has taken place, but differences persist in terms of the uneven internationalisation that we have theorised. Our evidence indicates that varied levels of internationally-oriented research policies, on the one hand, and global inequalities of knowledge production, on the other, may have also played a role in different levels of internationalisation across regions.

Epistemic communities

Whereas self-referentiality and internationalisation are indicators of structural institutionalisation, another side of institutionalisation involves more the substance of knowledge production, or the ‘culture of knowledge production. Therefore, in this section, we bring together the themes discussed above and elaborate on the argument that within migration studies there are several sub-areas that have evolved over time. These developments can be traced using co-citation analysis, which shows authors who are often referred to, regardless of the type of publication (including books), in migration literature. It is important to emphasise that these are not necessarily authors who cite each other. Authors who are often cited together (co-cited) in one document form a cluster. These clusters can be interpreted as epistemic communities, or so to say, discursive spaces, reflecting the way in which authors position themselves in wider conceptual discussions. A common reference basis allows scientists to engage in meaningful discussions on theory and methodology. Therefore, the frequent co-citation of authors indicates a shared epistemic foundation from which the citing literature stems. Of course, authors whose work is criticised may be co-cited with others whose theory or method one adopts. Nevertheless, such co-citation still points to the existence of a shared epistemic community within which such debates make sense, since the citing researchers know about the existence of the authors they disagree with and deem relevant to distinguish their own approach from those who are being criticised. These reference communities may be thematically -, disciplinarily- and even geographically-bound, in light of the uneven internationalisation discussed in the latter section.

Here we demonstrate the findings from this analysis and how they relate to the insights obtained from the expert interviews.

Reference islands: (cross-)disciplinary themes

From the late 1970s to late 1980s migration research was divided into several distinct clusters, pointing at the existence of separate reference ‘islands’ (bubbles), cited by different groups of scholars (Fig. 7). The main three groups we define are “Assimilationists” (red), “Economic sociologists” (dark blue) and “Economists” (light blue), “Demographers” (green), “Refugee studies” (violet). The assimilationists’ and demographers’ clusters seem to have the least in common, as they are positioned on the opposite sides of the network. The epistemic community of “Assimilationists” were during this time discussing the process of migrant adaptation and inter-group relationships, while “Demographers” worked largely on issues of fertility and mortality across various ethnic groups and migration statuses. Overall, there is a clear divide between cultural sociologists, economic sociologists, economists and demographers. These dispersed groups are connected via the US census as a data source, indicating that migration studies then were largely US-based.

Fig. 7

co-citations 1975–1984 (N = 554)

In the next 10 years (Fig. 8) we see that the cluster of “Assimilationists” (red) changed, and some authors of the previous decade were grouped into other clusters. New names, such as Smith, Liberson, Banton, Asante and Davidson were cited the most, and therefore a new name “Race and ethnic relations” seems to be more appropriate for this cluster (red). From this period on, critical black scholars became increasingly prominent in this sub-field, such as Gilroy, Hall, Du Bois, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. Other pink and rose-coloured clusters deal with the issues of ethnic entrepreneurship, migrant networks and refugee movements. The blue cluster encompassed both economists and sociologists who investigated economic aspects of migration and integration/assimilation. Also, a new cluster (yellow) emerged, which we named “Acculturationists”, it is represented by authors who wrote on cross-cultural interactions, intercultural behaviour and interpersonal communication across cultures, such as Gudykunst, Triandis, Brislin as well as J. W Berry, who became increasingly prominent over time. This cluster seems to have a psychological disciplinary orientation and is connected mostly with the “Race and ethnic relations” cluster.

Fig. 8

co-citation networks 1985–1994 (N = 1043)

In the late 1990s and early 2000s we found the beginning of significant transformations in migration literature, as the reference field grew quickly (see Fig. 1). The clusters “Acculturationists” (yellow), “Race relations” (red), “Economic sociologists” (dark blue) seem to be positioned more closely together (Fig. 9), indicating more co-citations across these communities. “Economic sociologists” (dark blue in Figs. 8 and 9) absorbed some authors from “Refugee studies” (violet), and “Race relations” (pink) (Fig. 8), as the authors were co-cited more frequently. This fusion may have led to the formation of a new cluster located next to “Economic Sociologists”, which includes Vertovec, Sassen, Castles, and Freeman (light rosy Fig. 9). This could possibly be interpreted with the help of our interviewees, who suggested that migration studies developed with two sociological traditions: (i) the Wisconsin/Michigan approach represented by Massey, Portes, and Cornelius, with a focus on the migration and the (receiving) state, and (ii) the Wallerstein/world systems approach represented by Sassen, Levitt, Soysal, and Joppke which focused on globalisation and adopted a more critical ontology of assimilation and migration. We therefore renamed the blue cluster as “Wisconsin/ Michigan school”, and the light pink as “Global systems school”.

Fig. 9

co-citations 1995–2004 (N = 2237)

The new age of migration studies: 2005-present

Since 2005, a new age of migration studies has emerged. The rounder shape of the co-citation network (Fig. 10) means that there is now more literature that draws upon the authors from various clusters, pulling the edges closer to each other. Together with the diminishing citation prevalence of Caldwell’s work, the cluster of “Demographers” (green in previous periods) has merged with part of the “Wisconsin/Michigan school” led by Massey, Borjas and others. The cluster of the “Global systems school” has dramatically grown and seems very intertwined with other epistemic communities. Between the yellow cluster “Acculturationists” and “Economic sociology + demography” (turquoise) we see a new cluster (Lime) devoted to the topics of “Race, Migration and Health” represented by Williams and Krieger. Between the “Race relations” and the “Global systems” schools we can see a cluster which could be labelled as “Mobilities” (orange), illustrated by Sheller and Urry’s prominence.

Fig. 10

co-citations 2005–2014 (N = 7782)

Disciplines and cross-disciplinary osmosis

Our expert interviewees reflected in depth on the interdisciplinary evolution of the field. In this section we bring together their perceptions and the bibliographic evidence.

Sociology was regarded as either the founding or a prominent discipline in migration studies by nearly all our interviewees. Our findings confirm this, showing that sociology has been one of the three core disciplines in the field since the 1970s. In Fig. 11 the readers can see that many clusters have a sociological orientation throughout the whole period of analysis. Moreover, since the 1990s, sociologists such as Bourdieu and Foucault – among the most-cited authors by migration scholars (Figs. 9 and 10) – indicate sociology’s dominance in the field.

Fig. 11

visualisation of the genesis of Migration Studies as a research field (1974–2018). Co-citation clusters of migration studies literature 1975–2018

The importance of economics in migration studies, highlighted by some interviewees, can also be confirmed. One interviewee noted that economists have been writing on migration since at least the 1970s, as we can observe in their separate cluster in the period 1975–84. Another expert argued that economics joined “the talks of globalisation and transnationalism” in 1980s, and indeed since late 1980s, the economists were merged in one cluster with economic sociologists (dark blue) (Fig. 11), possibly due to literature referring to authors from both disciplines in discussions on these emerging topics.

A few interviewees noted that demography has gradually become an important discipline in migration studies. Our analysis of epistemic communities shows the presence and prominence of demography from 1975 until 2004, after which it merged with the cluster of economic sociology, indicating a growing shared reference basis for quantitative migration studies in the new millennium. It is understandable that some respondents did not consider demography a central discipline in the field. One possible reason is that in the past demography was not at the “core” of migration studies, but it was one of several equally prominent, yet separated “cores” until 2005. In that period, demographic literature became increasingly co-cited with the US-centric cluster of economic sociologists and economists. This, however, is conceptually distant from the burgeoning “Global Systems school”, in which the work of the interviewee is situated.

Several interviewees agreed that lawyers and economists are not very interdisciplinary, with few exceptions. We did not identify separate clusters of lawyers and economists, except in the late 1970s and early 1980s, therefore this claim is not supported by our analysis. On the contrary, economics seems to have become part of one epistemic community comprised of economic sociologists and population studies researchers. Though, notably, social-psychology (yellow) has maintained its separation from other epistemic communities the longest. Surprisingly, we did not identify separate clusters of historians, despite the fact that several of our expert interviewees supported the importance of this discipline in the development of the field. This might be due to Web of Science’s limited coverage of historically-, as well as anthropologically-oriented journals. Even though the latter discipline was also not clearly delineated in the co-citation analyses, quite a few social anthropologists (i.e. Penninx, Vertovec, Khosravi, etc.) were noticed among the present clusters, but they did not form a separate group meaning that their studies have been much used by sociologists and other researchers of migration.

The cluster of social geographers began to be visible in our networks only recently (since 2010), so according to our data it did not seem to be as important as sociology in the field. Geographers have been perceived by our experts as the lynchpin for interdisciplinary developments. This may be true, since we can see that their prominence in the networks coincided with the period when the distant edges of the network came together in the circular shape of Fig. 10.

Both qualitative and quantitative analysis of co-citation networks generally confirm expectation 4. Overall, disciplinary orientations have not disappeared over time, but it is clear that since the twenty-first century the co-citation network has developed a round shape (Fig. 11), which happens when authors from very different and previously-disconnected epistemic communities are cited together in the works of emerging scholars. Based on this, we can confidently claim that the interdisciplinary basis for future research is now stronger than it was 40 years ago. This shift is particularly striking from 2005 onwards. Our respondents identified the rise of transnationalism, the establishment of interdisciplinary migration research centres around the world as catalysts for this change. This was also possibly facilitated by the creation of the interdisciplinary funding programmes, such as the Migration Program (1994–2008) in the USA funded by the Social Science Research Council, and the emergence of large-scale research networks and postgraduate programmes at the Universities of Sussex and Oxford in the 1990s. However, according some experts, the field is not interdisciplinary enough, because it is hindered by existing structures (cf. Abbott 2001), namely: the higher impact factors of mainstream disciplinary journals; disciplinary boundaries in faculty structures; and funding streams, especially those coming from the EU.

Basic quantitative analyses of the co-citation networks support our qualitative findings. The amount of unique citation sources overall increased drastically by 14 times from the beginning of the analysed period until now. Due to this increase, the probability of two different sources being mentioned together in a study has decreased, since there are many more authors to choose from, while the number of references in an average scientific publication could not grow to that extent (Table 3). One would cite 30–40 sources at most per document. So, the decrease in density in this case does not mean a disciplinary fragmentation. Looking at the average path length (APL), or the average number of authors it takes to connect one author to another author in the network, we can see that it remained stable and has even slightly declined since the late 1990s. The APL of 2 means that on average all possible authors in the co-citation network are connected with each other via 2 other authors. In recent years this value has become even less than 2. This means that the epistemic communities in migration studies, despite the quantitative proliferation of the sources, remained closely interlinked. Taken together with our previous qualitative findings, this strengthens our argument that migration studies represents an institutionalised field.

Table 3 Co-citation network density, per decade, 1975-2018

Epistemic divides in migration studies

The distinction between the two sociological schools of thought (Michigan/Wisconsin – Global systems approach) most strongly applies to the 2000s onwards. Even though scholars from these streams have been co-cited in many studies (indicated by the close proximity of the clusters), they still maintain their division.

One interviewee argued that there are three separate groups of migration scholars: those focused on integration and assimilation, those studying transnational/international migration, and another sub-field on migration and development. The first one included scholars such as Alba, Nee, Portes, Rumbaut, Kasinitz, Waters; while the second included Massey, Vertovec, Severs, Schneider, Soysal, Crul, and Favell. Although this interviewee did not name specific authors in the third stream, but in the analysis, we consider authors such as Mabogunje, Appleyard, and Castles, and, more recently, de Haas, Piper, and Carling to be possible representatives of this group.

Our analysis largely confirms the distinction between the “integrationists” and “transnationalists”, since the latter’s emergence in the 1990s. In 2005–2014 (Fig. 10) we see that the “integrationist” authors (Alba, Portes, Rumbaut, Kasinitz and Waters) and interestingly also Crul, belong to the cluster called “Michigan/Wisconsin school”. While Levitt, Vertovec, Soysal and Favell –the “transnationalists” - were part of another cluster, “Global systems approach”. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the third group, “developmental scholars”, form a “separate conversation” in any period. In the past, authors writing on development appeared on the intersections of several clusters, meaning that their writing was cited by scholars from multiple communities. Moreover, the centrality and citation prominence of the UN and World Bank references in the demographic cluster in the 1970s–1980s (Fig. 8), suggests a possible development focus in this area. More recently, development scholars such as de Haas, Piper, Carling, Landau have been intertwined with the “Global systems school”/“transnationalists”, however they are somewhat separated from the integration scholars (Fig. 10).

Key developments in migration studies

Based on the theory (E5), we expected that migration studies emerged from the “shadows” of ethnic and racial studies in the 1970s–1990s and became its own field after the turn of the century. Our findings indicate that throughout the whole 45-year period studies on migration referenced both authors focused on “ethnic/race relations” and those focused on “labour market/ economic aspects” of migrant integration. Both streams of research grew substantially over the years (as did the field in general), with these streams of literature gradually becoming more interlinked. The migration studies of today did not seem to come from the shadows of ethnic/race relations studies alone, but rather developed from a combination of demographic studies, socio-psychological studies, race/ethnic relation studies, labour/economic integration studies, refugee studies, transnationalism and development studies.

We also expected to see the emergence of transnationalism from the mid-1990s onwards as a prominent sub-field of migration studies. This trend was suggested by several interviewees. Key authors who introduced and developed the “transnationalism” concept include Levitt, Faist, Portes, Glick-Schiller and Vertovec. Since the early 2000s these authors have been increasingly cited and co-cited in the migration studies, indicating a growing amount of literature looking at migration in terms of a process, not an end point, as it was widely conceived in the 1970–1990s.

Another expectation related to the “cultural turn” of migration research, in terms of a shift from predominantly quantitative and demographic approaches towards of epistemic communities centred around broader qualitative studies of migration. The reference patterns observed in the data seem to confirm such a development. The rise and the increased citations of Foucault and Bourdieu, together with the decreased citation significance and centrality of the Census Bureau may point to the rise of qualitative approaches in migration studies. Although based on the co-citation analysis we cannot claim that such approaches overtook quantitative studies, as here we analyse reference lists of the studies, not the amount of documents and their topics. Moreover, we notice that besides the World Bank and US census bureau, new data sources have begun to be referenced in recent years, such as OECD, ILO, and Eurostat, Canadian statistics, and other countries. Over 30 statistical offices are being referred to in the literature in the period 2015–2018, while nearly 3 decades earlier there were only two (US and the UK).

Conclusion and discussion: fragmentation and institutionalisation in the field of migration studies

This article provides an empirical analysis of the growth of migration studies. It asks whether the proliferation of migration studies over the last four decades involved a gradual institutionalisation as a research field, or whether growth came with fragmentation. Our analysis helps migration studies to reach beyond relatively simplistic understandings of growth as a sign of institutionalisation in itself; it shifts attention from the fact that migration studies has grown to how it is has grown.

We have taken self-referentiality, internationalisation and the development of co-citation networks (epistemic communities) as indicators of institutionalisation. If migration studies has institutionalised as a research field, we expected an increase in self-referentiality, an increase of internationalisation and the evolution of a coherent set of co-citation networks. In contrast, if growth comes with fragmentation, this would be visible in declining self-referentiality, stagnating internationalisation and the absence of coherent co-citation networks.

Our analysis confirms that the growth of migration studies has involved institutionalisation as a research field. Self-referentiality has strongly increased since the 1970s, although the data since the late 2000s suggest that this is not a linear trend. Even when controlling for the immense increase of publication outlets (and hence referencing opportunities), the intensity of citation links increased, especially between 1975 and 2008. Since 2008 there appears to be a stagnation, for which there is no clear interpretation available. This could be down to lag effect in referencing, but it could also be an indication that, since 2008, migration studies is increasingly embedded in other fields, and develops less as a discrete research field.

In addition, we found a clear absolute and relative increase in international co-authorships. This is a clear indication of the internationalisation of the field. Whether this indeed means that migration scholars have reached beyond the critiques of methodological nationalism requires further research. Also when compared to internationalisation in other fields, this internationalisation is also likely a consequence of digitisation and the increase of opportunities for collaboration. However, we also found this internationalisation to be uneven; a disproportionate share of international co-authorships involves collaborations in (and not necessarily between) Europe and North-America, casting a shadow on the globalisation of the research field.

Furthermore, we found that in terms of co-citation networks, there is also a growing coherency in the field of migration studies. Our analysis of co-citation networks shows that whereas in the 1970s migration studies involved distinct and also very separate co-citation clusters, in the 2010s there was a clearly enhanced coherency between these clusters. Although migration studies, as any research field, consists of distinct epistemic communities that refer to themselves primarily, they also increasingly refer to one and another. Many of the epistemic communities that we found also clearly relate to specific disciplinary backgrounds, such as economic sociologists, or demographers. Therefore, our findings suggest that migration studies evolved from a multi-disciplinary field (with various but very distinct disciplines) to a more interdisciplinary field (with various and linked disciplines).

Finally, we found distinct developments within the epistemic communities that make up the field of migration studies. We found that migration studies does not come from the shadows of ethnic/race relations studies alone, but rather developed from a combination of demographic studies, socio-psychological studies, race/ethnic relation studies, labour/economic integration studies, refugee studies, transnationalism and development studies. Furthermore, we see that recent migration studies show a proliferation of specific epistemic communities, including that on ethnic/race relations and on global systems theory. Furthermore, new communities have emerged, such as most notably on race, migration and health.

Availability of data and materials

The bibliographic metadata are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

The data related to international co-authorships may be obtained from

Change history

  • 24 August 2020

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

  1. 1.

    E.g. a transdisciplinary article is one where it becomes difficult to ascertain the discipline from which it has originated, even though it is clearly identified as belonging to migration studies.

  2. 2.

    See sheet ‘all countries weighted’ for relativized co-authorship statistics.

  1. Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar

  2. Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2019). A criteria-based assessment of the coverage of Scopus and web of science. Sciendo, 4(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar

  3. Bertossi, C., & Duyvendak, J. (2012). National models of immigrant integration: The costs for comparative research. Comparative European Politics, 10(3), 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar

  4. Bommes, M., & Morawska, E. (2005). International migration research: Constructions, omissions and the promises of Interdisciplinarity. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar

  5. Borkert, M. (2018). Moving out of the comfort zone: Promises and pitfalls of interdisciplinary migration research in Europe. In R. Zapata-Barrero, & S. Yalaz (Eds.), Qualitative research in European migration studies (pp. 57–73). Dordrecht: Springer.

  6. Brettell, C. B., & Hollifield, J. F. (2000). Migration theory: Talking across disciplines (1st ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

  7. Brettell, C. B., & Hollifield, J. F. (2008). Migration theory: Talking across disciplines (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

  8. Brettell, C. B., & Hollifield, J. F. (2015). Migration theory: Talking across disciplines (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

  9. Carling, J. (2015). 'Who is who in migration studies: 107 names worth knowing'. Accessed 27 May 2020.

  10. Castles, S., de Haas, H., & Miller, M. J. (2014). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world (5th ed.). London: Macmillan.

  11. Charmaz, K. (2001). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium, & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 675–694). London: Sage.

  12. Cohen, R. (1996). 'Theories of Migration'. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  13. de Baas, A. F., & Vallés, J. L. (2007). Networks of excellence: Key for the future of EU research – Success stories in the materials domain. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research, Industrial technologies.

    Google Scholar

  14. European Union. (2016, February 2). How should interdisciplinarity and stakeholder knowledge be addressed and evaluated in Horizon 2020 proposals? Retrieved August 22, 2019, from Funding & tender opportunities:;keywords=/935

  15. Favell, A. (2003). Integration nations: The nation-state and research on immigrants in Western Europe. Comparative Social Research, 22, 13–42.

  16. Favell, A. (2015). Migration theory rebooted? Asymmetric challenges in a global agenda. In C. B. Brettell, & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.), Migration theory: Talking across disciplines (pp. 318–328). Abingdon: Routledge.

  17. Geddes, A., & Scholten, P. (2015). Policy analysis and Europeanization: An analysis of EU migrant integration policymaking. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 17(1), 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar

  18. Gläser, J., Glänzel, W., & Scharnhorst, A. (2017). Same data—Different results? Towards a comparative approach to the identification of thematic structures in science. Scientometrics, 111(2), 981–998.

    Article  Google Scholar

  19. Greenwood, M. J., & Hunt, G. L. (2003). The early history of migration research. International Regional Science Review, 26(1), 3–37.

    Article  Google Scholar

  20. Hatton, J. P. (2011). How and why did MARS facilitate migration control? Understanding the implication of migration and refugee studies (MARS) with the restriction of human mobility by UK state agencies. Oxford: PhD thesis.

    Google Scholar

  21. Henke, R. (2001). A framework for understanding cross-national differences in the relationship between research and policy. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 2(4), 581–611.

    Article  Google Scholar

  22. Hess, D. (1997). Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. New York: NYU Press.

  23. King, R. (2012). Theories and typologies of migration: An overview and a primer. Malmö: Malmö Institute for Studies of migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM).

    Google Scholar

  24. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  25. Kritz, M. M., Tomasi, S. M., & Keely, C. B. (Eds.). (1981). Global trends in migration: theory and research on international population movements. Staten Island, NY: Center for Migration Studies.

  26. Kuhn, T. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  27. Levy, N., Pisarevskaya, A., & Scholten, P. (2020). "Between the fragmentation and institutionalisation of migration studies: VOSViewer map and network data". Harvard Dataverse. Accessed 28 May 2020.

  28. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., & Pellegrino, A. (1998). Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar

  29. Nakamura, H., Suzuki, S., Hironori, T., Kajikawa, Y., & Sakata, I. (2011). Citation lag analysis in supply chain research. Scientometrics, 87(2), 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar

  30. Penninx, R., Spencer, D., & van Hear, N. (2008). Migration and integration in Europe: The state of research. Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society.

    Google Scholar

  31. Pisarevskaya, A., Levy, N., Scholten, P., & Jansen, J. (2019). Mapping migration studies: An empirical analysis of the coming of age of a research field. Migration Studies, 1–27.

  32. Plomp, R. (1990). The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy. Scientometrics, 19(3–4), 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar

  33. Portes, A. (1997). Immigration theory for a new century: Some problems and opportunities. International Migration Review, 31(4), 799–825.

    Article  Google Scholar

  34. Portes, A., & DeWind, J. (2004). A cross‐Atlantic dialogue: the progress of research and theory in the study of international migration. International Migration Review, 38(3), 828–851.

  35. Ravenstein, E. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 48(2), 167–235.

    Article  Google Scholar

  36. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative science quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.

  37. Scholten, P., Entzinger, H., Penninx, R., & Verbeek, S. (2015). Integrating immigrants in Europe: Research-policy dialogues. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar

  38. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

  39. Shinn, T. (2002). The triple Helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaging thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science, 32(4), 599–614.

    Google Scholar

  40. Sirkeci, I., Cohen, J. H., & Přívara, A. (2017). Towards a migration letters index: The most influential works and authors in migration studies. Migration Letters, 14(3), 397–424.

    Article  Google Scholar

  41. Thomas, W., & Znaniecki, F. (1918). The polish peasant in Europe and America. Boston: Badger.

    Google Scholar

  42. Thränhardt, D., & Bommes, M. (2010). National Paradigms of migration research. Osnabrück: V&R.

    Google Scholar

  43. van den Boom, D. (2010). A paradigm for Nigerian migration research? In D. Thränhardt, & M. Bommes (Eds.), National Paradigms of migration research (pp. 315–322). Osnabrück: V&R.

  44. van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2009). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 528–538.

    Google Scholar

  45. Vargas-Silva, C. (Ed.). (2012). 'Handbook of Research Methods in Migration'. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  46. Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2003). Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migratoin and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334.

  47. Winter, E. (2014). Traditions of nationhood or political conjecture? Debating citizenship in Canada and Germany. Comparative Migration Studies, 2(1), 29–55.

    Article  Google Scholar

  48. Xiang, B., & Tan, S. (2005). Does migration research matter in China? A review of its relationship to policy since the 1980s. International Journal of Multicultural Societies, 7(1), 11–32.

  49. Yarime, M., Takeda, Y., & Kajikawa, Y. (2010). Towards institutional analysis of sustainability science: a quantitative examination of the patterns of research collaboration. Sustainability Science, 5(1), 115.

Download references

This research is associated with the CrossMigration project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement Ares (2017) 5627812–770121.

Project website:

Author information

NL wrote the introduction, theoretical and methodological sections. NL conducted the analyses for and wrote the sections on self-referentiality and internationalisation. AP cross-checked and edited all of the above sections. AP conducted the analyses for and wrote the section on epistemic communities. NL cross-checked and edited the section on epistemic communities. PS cross-checked and edited the entire manuscript. All authors met and discussed key conclusions. PS wrote the conclusion/discussion section. NL and AP cross-checked and edited it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Levy.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

No competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: several typesetting mistakes have been corrected.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1: Annex 1

: Web of Science complex query. Annex 2: Yearly overview of authors, organisations, and countries publishing migration research, 1975-2018.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levy, N., Pisarevskaya, A. & Scholten, P. Between fragmentation and institutionalisation: the rise of migration studies as a research field. CMS 8, 24 (2020).

Download citation


text:
In complex times, it helps to have a trusted guide.
Katie Ledger
Senior Practitioner

Biography //

Katie is a highly experienced practitioner, equally comfortable exec coaching, guiding teams or hosting international conferences. Twelve years working as a journalist and TV news presenter for the BBC, ITN, Channel 5 News and TVB in Hong Kong followed by nine years of running her own communications business, Katie now uses her skills in the business sector to help leaders shift from ‘turning up’ to ‘showing up’. She enables individuals to both increase their capabilities and capacity using practical tools to deliver desired results.

Track record //

Katie coaches senior leaders in multiple markets and geographies. For the last 14 years, she has worked extensively with leaders and innovators in media and technology sectors in companies such as Xerox, Microsoft and Google helping them to unlock their potential and deliver results despite the pressure. She has facilitated discussions with high profile leaders such as David Cameron, Steve Ballmer, Gordon Brown and Ursula Burns (former Xerox CEO).

Based largely on her experience of living and working in Hong Kong for four years, Katie has co-written a book on how to create a portfolio career and succeed in multi-market sectors called And What Do You Do? Asia taught her that agile innovation and the ability to keep redefining ourselves and our work is essential to real thriving.

“How we show up and lead matters hugely. The ability to develop and optimise our personal energy and emotional resilience is within each of us and each of our teams. In complex times, it helps to have a trusted guide.”

– Katie Ledger, Senior Practitioner

Style //

Katie’s style is focused, high energy and pragmatic; a style that clients find infectious. She is a fantastic listener and immediately creates trust with the clients she works with. She serves by encouragement and challenge and is keen to introduce new concepts and thinking. She can see the bigger picture and expertly guides clients through the difficult conversations and progressive steps to realise their widest and deepest potential. The result is that people perform at their best and communicate with genuine passion and impact.

Qualifications //

Katie is a qualified professional level coach, trained by Integral Coaching Canada in their Integral Coaching method. Ken Wilber has described this to be ‘the most complete and comprehensive coaching program available’. Katie is also a member of the International Coaching Federation (ICF).

Resources and Publications //

Podcast: Stories of Success with Volker Ballueder

“Interviewing Katie Ledger for my podcast was amazing. After a career as a TV news journalist and her reinventing herself a couple of times, Katie is now developing leaders and teams to inspirational performance. Her approach to life seems simple, yet very profound. I enjoyed every minute of our conversation about coaching, morning routines, and what life has in stock for us. We didn’t drift too much into the philosophical side of things, but discovered a lot around success, discussed portfolio careers and how mentors come into your life for a reason. I hope you enjoy this episode as much as I have; we spoke about Emotional Intelligence and us becoming a victim of the process we are living as we aren’t that conscious in the moment.”

Listen with Spotify.
Listen with iTunes.

Publication //

May 20, 2020
Four perspectives to consider in a crisis
In a crisis we can feel anxious and our thinking becomes narrowed – fight, flight or play dead. Many people are feeling the pressure and uncertainty of the current pandemic. The ‘washing machine’ of the mind can be on a constant spin and we might struggle to find the off switch. However, there is a […]
Read more


text:
PROfortil™ is a clinically proven treatment for male fertility disorders that contains d a patented ansynergistic composition of micronutrients. The effectiveness of PROfortil™ has been proven in five studies1-5.
  • PROfortil  is the only formulation that has six clinical studies1-5 demonstrating its efficacy and safety.
  • In a controlled study of 205 patients1, for example, PROfortil was superior to the control group in improving all key metrics for sperm quality – ejaculatory volume, cell density, motility and morphology.
  • More importantly, after three months of treatment with PROfortil 26% of couples achieved pregnancy.
  • In a separate study2, PROfortil was given to male patients with subclinical varicocele. Post-treatment evaluation showed an improvement in all male fertility parameters, with pregnancy occurring in 41% of couples.
  • PROfortil is made in Austria with European-sourced ingredients and produced in compliance with Pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practices.

Red Leaf Medical Inc. is a proud member of BIOTECanada.


text:
ICGSE 2019
Fri 24 - Sun 26 May 2019 Montreal, QC, Canada
co-located with ICSE 2019
Xiaoqin Fu

Registered user since Fri 29 Mar 2019

Name: Xiaoqin Fu

Bio: Research Interests: Software Engineering Program Analysis Software Evolution Software Reliability Security and Privacy

Country: United States

Affiliation: Washington State University

Personal website: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Xiaoqin_Fu3

ICPC 2019 Measuring Interprocess Communications in Distributed Systems
ICSE 2019 On the Deterioration of Learning-Based Malware Detectors for Android
Show activities from other conferences

ICSE 2019-profile
View general profile


text:
Conpago COVID Response Plan
Supporting our customers and clients

More than ever, we need to look at how coronavirus is impacting our elderly.

We are grateful to all the on-ground carers who are servicing the industry and providing the best care to our beloved seniors.

We’ve supported their efforts by:

  • Over 25,000 minutes subscribed to provide essential private & personalised rehabilitation sessions (like physiotherapy) to seniors
  • Scheduled group classes via our Conpago system
  • 1-to-1 video calls for seniors to connect to their loved ones
  • Helped seniors to have an outlet for communication.

  • Conpago helped care providers to close the feedback loop, swiftly through our digital survey system.
  • Helped Care providers to Meet with compulsory survey quota, regulated by the Government.
  • Data reports to suggest the impact of all the services provided, and cost saving through digital solutions.

Purchase Your PPE With Conpago

Our Range

Includes: Masks, Face Shields, Isolation Gowns

Business Operations

Conpago works seamlessly with many of the sector’s leading software to enhance your existing systems and processes.

Clear Business Analytics

Secure clear and concise business intelligence to optimise your decision making with comprehensive reporting.

Co-designed For You

No need to disrupt what is working for you. The configuration of your Conpago solution is collaboratively designed with you.

Transparent & Compliant

We provide full transparency of what services are being delivered and aligned with legislative quality standards.

Why Conpago?

Got more questions?

We'd be delighted to discuss how the Conpago solution could assist your organisation.


text:
Conrail's Marion Branch was the ex NYC Michigan Branch that ran from Elkhart, IN to Anderson, IN. This line was an important line to Conrail, enabling them to get automotive traffic from Michigan and Northern Indiana down to Indianapolis and Avon yard. The line from Elkhart to Marion, IN is signaled with PRR CPL signals, making this the only NYC line to have PRR signals(came from the PRR Richmond branch when PC rebuilt the Marion branchback in 1973 or 74). From Marion to Anderson the linewas called the Dow Secondary and was dispatched by Form-D's. This branch was also home to Conrail's unique SD80MACs and later on the SD70MACs.

Map Icon This gallery is available on an interactive map.

Displaying 1 - 31 of 31 images in this gallery


text:
The most populated series on the EMD side of the CR roster were the 223 GP38-2's inherited from Penn Central. Conrail also purchased 115 brand new GP38-2's between 1977 and 1979. The entire roster filled the 7940 to 8281 block. The four-axle units churned out 2,000hp and were regulars in all types of service.

Equipped with plows on both ends, several were cleared for use at the PP&L Strawberry Ridge, PA power plant (8040 and 8064) and others were equipped with bi-directional cab arrangements (8154 and 8162). The PC GP38-2s were built without anti-climbers. Conrail's 8163 froward order included the anti-climbers. A small handful of other subtle differences can be found when comparing the different orders such as the fuel spout revision, nose ventilation lovers, an additional latch to the control compartment door, etc.
Displaying 1 - 60 of 389 images in this gallery


text:
3 Reasons Drones Improve Infrastructure Inspections

The global economy depends on the vast network of infrastructure which connects goods and services in the marketplace to customers.

Roads, railways, bridges, power plants, wind turbines, solar farms, and more are vital to meeting our energy needs and fueling commerce.

The cost to maintain these critical structures can be staggering. For example, in the United States, the government spends well over $400 billion annually on infrastructure alone. A significant portion of that spend goes toward inspection, maintenance, and repairing existing structures.

Even more alarming than the cost is the age and health of these structures.

Like many countries, the United States is facing a crisis concerning rapidly degrading infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the U.S. will need to spend $4.5 trillion by 2025 to fix it.

Traditional methods of infrastructure inspection rely heavily on placing people in harm’s way to complete the task.

Structures such as wind turbines and bridges place people at dangerous heights and around moving parts that can cause injury or death. Personnel exposed to working at heights often have some of the highest fatality rates for work-related deaths.

Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology has advanced far enough to replace human involvement in many of these precarious situations, while often producing better results. Here’s how.

The Benefits of Drone Inspections

Improved safety is perhaps the most significant benefit of using drones for inspections.

When conducting an assessment, inspectors use various tools to detect stresses in materials, surface temperatures, and other factors to determine the physical and functional condition of a given structure.

Recent: Should You Use Drone as a Service or Start an In-House UAV Program?

Before industries began using drones, most inspection methods put people in harm’s way. In some cases, such as the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, areas that required thorough, periodic examinations were far too dangerous for workers.

Drones ably move into dangerous areas, including radioactive environments, and collect the information needed without ever posing a risk to humans

Typical infrastructure inspections may take weeks or even months to plan and schedule, and they may require shutdowns and delays.

For example, if a bridge requires an inspection for evidence of cracks in concrete supports, you’ll need additional equipment, such as hydraulic lifts, to complete the task. And, you’ll likely need to close off that bridge for the inspection team’s safety, thus causing traffic delays.

Once you schedule an inspection team, rent heavy equipment, and work with government officials to get clearances, you’re already be behind schedule and over budget. Of course, that’s all in addition to the aforementioned safety concerns.

The use of drones eliminates all of those issues. With a certified remote pilot and the right UAS technology, you’ll mitigate those risks and quickly get the job done on your terms.

Advanced Technology and Data Collection

Inspections at most facilities, such as solar farms, require more than just visual observation.

Photographs in the visible spectrum might identify some issues, but completely miss others. Technologies, such as Thermal imaging, LiDAR, and sometimes multispectral imaging, provide powerful information. For example, you’ll immediately know when a solar cell is no longer functioning properly.

Many drones swap out payloads or have built-in dual-camera systems (i.e. Parrot Anafi Thermal). These features allow inspectors to collect numerous data points for further analysis in just a single drone flight.

There’s also the quality of UAV optics and other hardware, which allows for more precise inspection of hard to reach locations.

Optics have grown from small cameras producing grainy images to dynamic image-collecting devices with extensive zoom capabilities. Standard UAV cameras capture images 20MP or larger, and can take video in 4K or better.

Hardware improvements on GPS receivers, visual sensors, and infrared sensors have made obstacle-avoidance systems extraordinarily reliable, even indoors. Battery improvements are also advancing, as some drones are capable of hour-plus flight durations on a single charge.

Combined, the precision optics and reliable hardware provide inspectors with more precise, detailed data.

Drone inspection thermal imaging

Bringing It All Together

When it comes to infrastructure inspections, UAV technology has provided innovation across numerous industries.

With increased safety, enhanced data collection, higher quality data, and greater versatility, you’ll get more done safely, and with less disruption.

Of course, drone inspections require more than just buying the equipment and taking to the skies. You’ll need certified remote pilots and industry-specific training, plus operation and safety guidelines.

With Consortiq, we take care of the hard work for you. We’ll help you create a course of action based on your needs, from operational support and use cases, to ongoing training programs. If you’re not interested in starting your own drone program, we’ll conduct the inspections for you, when you need them.

Save time, limit risk, and get the information you need with Consortiq!

For a risk-free quote, or to schedule a consultation with a team member, just complete the form below, or call us at 1-855-203-8825 (U.S. office) | +44 (0)208 0450 322 (UK office).

David Daly - Contributing Author

David Daly - Contributing Author

David Daly, is an award-winning photographer/writer and licensed (FAA) Commercial sUAS pilot. A graduate of the United States Naval Academy, David is a former Marine Corps officer with a BS in Oceanography and has earned his MBA from the University of Redlands. David has worked for Fortune 100 companies and has a background in aerospace, construction, military/defense, real estate, and technology.

Ready to Start Your Drone Inspections? Contact Us Today to Get Started!

Select your currency