65
the movement between legal and non-legal statuses, as well as the extended indefiniteness, instability, and ambiguity that results from various temporary legal statuses for undocumented adults in the United States. As previously noted (section 2.5.4) some 1.5GUY are potentially eligible for a temporary, two-year legal stay through DACA, which in theory mitigates their vulnerability to deportation. Due to the temporary protections that DACA provides, Cebulko (2014) used the term in reference to the 1.5GUY who have no long-term legal status, as well as youth whose legal statues can change between
undocumented, DACAmented, and other short term legal statuses. Bloemraad (2013) has found that legal statuses marked by fluidity can offer both hope to individuals awaiting legalization, but can also reinforce ambiguity precariousness. Purcell (2007) has argued that it is critical for governments to provide stability when enforcing the law in liberal democracies. Because DACA is temporary and unstable, this scholarship together suggests that temporary legal recognition has implications for social injustices, including experiences of non-recognition that shape SofB. Further, discussions about this non-binary concept inspire questions about if SofB is liminal or ambiguous, rather than binary—
questions that an empirical exploration can answer.
66
insecurity, difference, racism, anger, hurt, or the inability to fit in as “non-belonging,” “unbelonging,”
or “disbelonging” (Figure 1). The presence of these emotions likely demonstrates the absence of SofB, especially as experiences of belonging have often been conceptualized in binary terms: one either belongs or one does not. I have particularly integrated concepts such as transnational simultaneity, the third space, coming out, cognitive dissonance, and intersectionality, as scholars have used these
concepts to capture overlapping, contradictory, hybrid, ambiguous, non-linear, and dynamic processes.
My estimation is that these concepts can help push the binary boundaries of SofB, especially in conjunction with empirical material.
Figure 2 Existing conceptualizations of experiences related to belonging
Within scholarship, there is also a tendency to alternate between SofB and belonging. It is especially through Lambert et al’s (2013) discovery that it is possible to have positive relationships and thus belong, but not feel accepted that I pay careful attention to the distinction between the two terms. My use of “sense of belonging” precisely aims to capture the emotional responses to everyday experiences;
•Socially constructed through the circumstances of everyday life
•Conscious negotiations of choice & opportunities
•Production, embodiment, performance meant to signify beonging or the struggle to belong
PROCESSES :
•Value, acceptance & importance; comfort; control & freedom; security &
safety; being at “home” & envisioning one's future in one's current community; terrains of commonality: fitting in, solidarity & community
•attachments & desire for attachments to people, places, and modes-of-being
• Sense of belonging is a vital human need crucial to survival, living a meaningful life, & achieving overall wellbeing
FEELINGS :
•Inclusion/exclusion; participation; membership; social identity, recognition &
relatedness; citizenship status & legal status; similarity & difference;
participation parity & recognition
•Contextual, situational, temporal & relational
EXPERIENCES:
67
whether experiences of belonging necessarily lead to SofB remains to be uncovered throughout the remains of this dissertation. I have also observed that scholars often link experiences of membership, inclusion, exclusion, and participation, to belonging. Scholars have argued that the 1.5GUY are first included and then excluded, straddle legal categories, and spheres of belonging in everyday life (see Chapter Two); I acknowledge that these experience likely influence SofB and thus should be taken into account, but their relationship remains to be explored in relation to how the 1.5GUY not only
experience, but also cope with SofB in everyday life.
The right to the city, in conjunction with citizenship and its various dimensions, has inspired me to ask questions about if and how the 1.5GUY experience SofB in everyday life despite their ULS. Such a focus includes how they navigate choices and limitations, agency and constraint. The concepts of social location, translocational positionality, and intersectionality serve as particular reminders as to a range of other interconnected influences on SofB, as well as the contextual, relational, and temporal influences to SofB. To help capture the dynamic and active ways that 1.5GUY cope with SofB in everyday life, I have purposely incorporated theories such as identification and performativity.
Especially because SofB is argued not only to come as the result of attachments or identifications, but also the desire for these connections, examining youth’s purposeful actions can capture the
performative ways 1.5GUY construct their everyday SofB. Such a focus includes how they navigate the limitations of ULS, as well as cope with the experiences of “nonbelonging” that it might produce.
In order to explore how 1.5GUY experience and cope with SofB in their everyday lives, a qualitative approach is necessary; I now turn my attention to methodological considerations through which such an exploration is possible.
68
4 Research Design, Methods & Methodology
In this chapter, I reflect upon choices made and methods employed to access and obtain qualitative data, so as to delve into the diversity of 1.5GUY’s experiences of everyday SofB. I take my departure from the methodological, theoretical, and empirical gaps established in Chapter Two to rationalize choices. In order to explore the everyday lived experiences of 1.5GUY; to contribute to established research gaps; and with the goal of conceptually developing SofB, I conducted an exploratory study via semi-structured interviews and participant observation. Here, I integrate scholarship while discussing my research design; phenomenological epistemology; interviewee recruitment, demographics, and vulnerability; data collection methods and processes; research ethics; qualitative content analysis; and research limitations, validity, and representativeness.