New Migration Research Framework Challenges How Scholars Study Human Movement

How does migration produce spaces and places? And how can we think about migration beyond a relational view on space? These questions are at the forefront of this special issue, which aims to move towards what we call a more-than-relational perspective in geographical migration studies. Migration is an inherently spatial phenomenon, with mobilities across localities forming a fundamental part of how societies are constructed. Still, despite its geographical significance, we find that the spatial assumptions underpinning population geographies are seldom made explicit. To advance geographical understandings of migration, we believe that the spatialities of migration deserve greater attention in scholarly debates, and, more specifically, that closer attention should be paid to spatial perspectives that are not exclusively relational. It is now some 30 years since the cultural turn paved the way for a spatial shift in how migration is approached within geography. To traditional studies of migration, which measured flows between points and regions in an absolute space (White and Woods 1980), migration scholars have added a rich diversity of work highlighting, for instance, individual motives, intersectional approaches and ethnographic entry points (Smith and King 2012). These approaches resonated with calls from population geography to make renewed use of social theory (White and Jackson 1995) and to open the sub-discipline as an interdisciplinary, theoretical and methodological “meeting-place” (Botterill and Philo 2023). This shift has naturally brought new spatial perspectives into the sub-discipline, which now exist alongside more traditional ones. The pronounced focus on transnational and translocal views of migration in the social sciences has been accompanied by a geographical, place-based perspective (Silvey and Lawson 1999; King and Kılınç 2025). Many of these contributions, however, have remained anchored in relational understandings of space (Gielis 2009; Mavroudi et al. 2017), leaving considerable room for exploring alternative spatial perspectives (Axelsson and Hedberg 2025). The prominent position of relational approaches in geographical migration studies, we believe, can be traced back to their central position in human geography more broadly. As Jones (2009: 488) observes, relational understandings of space have become ‘the mantra of the early twenty-first century in human geography'. Doreen Massey's For Space (2005) laid the groundwork for viewing space as a product of interrelations, characterized by multiplicity and constant change. This perspective aligned with the ideas of Amin and Thrift (2002), Amin et al. (2003) and Amin (2004), who conceptualized regions as non-territorial and defined by transnational flows. Thrift (2004: 59) captured this shift succinctly; ‘[s]pace is no longer seen as a nested hierarchy moving from “global” to “local”. This absurd scale dependent notion is replaced by the notion that what counts is connectivity'. In contemporary geography, relational thinking remains influential, evident in approaches such as assemblage theory, which examines how bundles of relations are constituted in, and constitute, space (Anderson et al. 2012; LeRon Shults 2021) and places (Cresswell 2019). So, what about relational theory and migration studies? Since migration inherently produces flows between places, it is natural to view this process as a key force in creating the relations that constitute spaces and places. The transnational perspective on migration, with its focus on social networks that transcend space, is closely aligned with relational spatial thinking (Bilecen and Lubbers 2021; Duffy and Stojanovic 2018; Featherstone et al. 2007) and with the notion of relationally produced timespaces (Mavroudi et al. 2017). From the perspective of assemblage theory, migration exemplifies globalized relations that shape places as dynamic accumulations of connections (Woods et al. 2021). Moreover, mobility theory has emphasized the centrality of relational understandings of spaces and places (Sheller 2017), supporting Salazar (2023) argument that places themselves can even be “movable”. In this context, encounters generated through migration are understood as momentary and in flux, producing places that are fluid and instant in their character (Peth et al. 2018). In this special issue, we recognize the significant contributions that relational perspectives have made to geographical migration studies. At the same time, we are concerned that a purely relational view may reduce the possibility for plurality in how we, as geographers, study migration and pose research questions. In fact, the relational perspective may be further reinforced in migration studies precisely because migration itself consists of flows and relations. Accordingly, we aim here to explore what lies beyond relational perspectives on migration, drawing on a wide range of more-than-relational views of space (Allen 2012; Jones 2022). Our starting point is the perspective of Jones (2009; 2022), which considers spatial units – in his case, the region – as simultaneously shaped by flows and by the pre-existing, inertial, and plastic, characteristics of a region. This perspective places greater emphasis on temporal aspects as well as contextual and institutional relations. We approach this from the conviction that an exclusive focus on “relations only”, rather than considering relations together with context and stability, risks overlooking the experiences of individuals inhabiting a place (see also Axelsson and Hedberg 2025). Because the relations generated by migration can be perceived as challenging for some of the already present local inhabitants, sometimes resulting in racist or xenophobic outcomes, contemporary societies face a pressing need to bridge the gap between essentialist and fluid understandings of space. By analyzing more-than-relational perspectives that incorporate both “the new” and “the old”, we hope to provide a foundation for dialogue across groups with different world views. By acknowledging places in the tension between the fluid and the inertial, including how they relate to migration, it may be possible to develop a language that helps societies navigate the transitions that migration entails. The idea for this special issue emerged from the Vega-symposium in 2021, arranged by the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography (SSAG) in honor of professor Anssi Paasi, under the theme “Bounded Spaces in Question: X-raying the Persistence of Regions and Territories”. The symposium highlighted the need to unpack and move beyond everyday understandings of spatial concepts, particularly those of region, territory, and borders (Paasi 2022). At the symposium, Martin Jones highlighted, indeed x-rayed, how relational spatial approaches have come to be treated almost unquestioningly by scholars in geography.1 Linking back to Paasi's understanding of regions as sticky, plastic and inertial, Jones questioned the dominance that relational perspectives have assumed within the discipline (see also Jones 2009; 2022). Accordingly, while the relational perspective has offered important insights into the nature of space, it also presents several problems, and there has been a tendency among scholars to ‘seriously overstate their case' (Jones 2009: 493). First, in a ‘flat ontology' that informs much of this research, where relational connections are assumed to be open-ended and never fixed, space is ‘reduced to process'. When understood this way, space loses the inertia and contextual grounding of a region or place. Second, Jones (2009: 493) raises concerns about the political implications of the relational perspective. Although politics is structured through administrative and political borders, the relational view tends to conceptualize politics as a ‘non-territorial project,' in which relations between places, rather than institutionalized administrative units, become the primary political actors. Rather than continuing to uphold a strictly relational view of space, which focuses on local, fleeting interactions, Jones, at the Vega symposium, instead advocated for a more-than-relational perspective on space, paraphrasing Allen (2012) (see also Jones 2022). From this standpoint, Jones emphasized the importance of recognizing the contextual and inertial qualities of space, which stand in marked contrast to the momentary and fluid approaches characteristic of relational thinking. Building on the idea of a more-than-relational view of space, we became interested in bringing the concept into geographical migration studies, exploring the directions in which this idea could inspire research in the field. How, for instance, might we x-ray the spatial assumptions underlying geographical research on migration? In an effort to deepen the spatial discussion on how relations produce space and place we organized a session at the International Geographical Union (IGU) in Paris in 2023 on the theme “Beyond relational space? The role of migration processes in the production of space and place”. The papers included in this special issue originate in this session, each contributing in its own distinct way to advancing more-than-relational spatial thinking in geographical migration studies. Starting with our own paper, Axelsson and Hedberg (2025), we develop the idea that attending to place provides a way to put more-than-relational understandings of space into practice. Doing so also requires sensitivity to the temporal depth of places. Drawing on Massey (1993) and Dodgshon (1998), we emphasize that migration both produces and is shaped by place: while migrants create new relations and transformations with a place over time, the histories, structures, and enduring qualities of that place also influence how migration unfolds. This plasticity of place means that some aspects of migration's imprint endure, while others fade or are reshaped. We refer to this approach as a timeplace perspective on migration, using a case study of Åsele to show how, over time, different migrant groups have become entangled with this small place in Northern Sweden. A more-than-relational approach to migration is also proposed by Lacroix and Misrahi-Barak (2025). Rather than treating space as a passive object of transformation, they turn to the concept of ecotone to highlight the reciprocal interplay between social dynamics and the path-dependency of place. Thus, this perspective foregrounds how place functions as a zone of encounter for migration flows, shaped simultaneously by materiality, temporality and power. In the paper, they illustrate the ecotone through two cases: first, a social encounter in a small Indo-Caribbean-Canadian shop in Toronto; and second, the changing character of the Jungle of Calais. The Jungle, once an informal camp temporarily positioned at the border with the UK, was later forcibly converted into a nature reserve by political intervention. Together, these cases illustrate how global migration dynamics take shape through everyday local interactions and how these interactions become sites of negotiation and contestation, how the materialities of places evolve over time, and how these trajectories are entangled with the physical environment. In their paper, Enβle-Reinhardt et al. (2024) demonstrate how a more-than-relational view of space intersects with the ‘local turn' in migration studies. They relate the local turn to refugee and immigrant reception in the city of Rostock, Germany, which during the large refugee arrivals in 2015 and 2016 served both as a transit town and as a destination for migration. The paper highlights the importance of acknowledging significant and enduring spatialities, such as territorial borders, administrative units, and embedded migration histories. The particular characteristics of the city of Rostock, including its geographical location as a port and transit hub for migration, its regional context of economic decline, and the disruptive spatial memories linked to neo-Nazi riots in the 1990s have in many ways shaped the ways refugees were received. Taken together, the authors conclude that a more-than-relational perspective “puts forward specific local, tangible conditions that shape how localities react to migration,” a point i.e. not only important for theoretical development, but also for the understanding of the reception and integration of migrants (Enβle-Reinhardt et al 2023: 9). Farooq and Pfaffenbach (2025) analyze how migrant workers in Muscat, Oman, are appropriating space despite financial and mobility constraints. The daily activities of migrants in a wadi, such as playing cricket, help construct a space that is characterized by temporality in many respects. Not only is the wadi used and appropriated by temporary migrants, who, due to their migration contracts, are expected to leave the area within 2 years, but the seasonal flooding of the wadi also renders activities temporary, in turn creating a temporary infrastructure. Migrant communities, sustained through social media, contribute to uphold this structure over time. The paper highlights how temporality deeply affects migrants' appropriation of space. The temporal layers of migrant activities in the wadi are the products both of geographical context, natural cycles of weather, as well as by the seasonal character and limited resources of migrants in the Middle East. Analyzing migrant workers in the gig economy, Butler, Zampoukos and Mitchell (2023) argue that a more-than-relational perspective is necessary to understand the spatial and temporal intricacies of labor relations. In line with Harvey (1996, 2019), they see space as tripartite and dialectical, consisting of interactions between absolute, relative and relational characteristics, which helps explain how gig workers are expected to be both “just in space” and “just in time”. These three spatial dimensions are interrelated: workers are situated in absolute space, bounded by inflexibility, where they wait for and perform their gigs; relative space is shaped by the racial, gendered and legal positionality they experience within a certain nation state, directly linked to their migrant status; and relational space, in contrast, is treated as a privileged space, offering possibilities primarily to consumers. The absolute and relative spatialities, however, construct a space i.e. largely closed to the migrant workers themselves. As such, the paper critiques the one-sided focus on spatial openness and possibility suggested by relational approaches to space. Moving the analysis towards mobility studies, Brouck (2025) investigates the relationship between flows and stability in contemporary hypermobile lifestyles. While spatialities shaped by mobility are often conceptualized as open, fluid, and unstable, where places, territories, or identities risk dissolution in the primacy of process over form, Brouck highlights that even in extreme forms of mobility, there are patterns of stability where form is ‘maintained within permanent flow' (Brouck 2025: 2). This insight is conceptualized through the figure of the knot, which functions as a hub connecting flowing and contextual aspects of space. The study examines the micro-processes through which hypermobile individuals appropriate, embed, and territorialize themselves in space. Through the performance of daily practices - rhythms, rituals, and symbolic gestures – both the territories and identities of hypermobile individuals are shaped, revealing the material, affective, and structuring capacities of space. Brouck (2025: 1) approach‘challenges dominant narratives of spatial dilution by emphasizing the dense, embedded, and “sticky” qualities of contemporary mobility,’ demonstrating that flows and stability are intertwined rather than mutually exclusive. There is something about the process of migration that draws our thinking, almost instantly, to the flows that migration is creating, and to how they link and interrelate places. In an era when relational approaches to space are thriving, it is easy to imagine how migratory links produce momentary meeting places that are always in transition, always in flux. However, in this SI, we argue that even though relational thinking has enriched geographical migration studies, it has also, at times, overshadowed other important dimensions of migration. Alternative spatial approaches deserve attention, as bringing them into focus broadens and deepens the understanding of migration. Accordingly, a more-than-relational view of migration gives priority to these other aspects of space, without denying the value of relational insights. Indeed, most of the contributions to this SI underscore that relational and non-relational dimensions of space are essential for the understanding of migration (see for instance Brouck 2025; Butler et al. 2024; Enβle-Reinhardt et al. 2024). Building on this foundation, in this SI, we have brought together a variety of perspectives that seek explanations beyond, or alongside, a relational view of space. Taken together, the papers suggest that multiple pathways lie open for the spatial analysis of migration within human geography. This is an important first conclusion, as it shows that what we are looking for in our more-than-relational appeal is not a single solution, but a diversity of spatial perspectives that enrich the understanding of migration. So, with this SI, we to show the many with which the process of migration can be demonstrating how, together, they provide a more of the geographies of migration. While their own approach to more-than-relational understandings of migratory space, most papers in this SI, are in specific Muscat, Rostock, Paris and and the Jungle, This grounding provides a point from which the theoretical perspectives across the papers contribute to a more-than-relational understanding of migration while to “the of as in the situated geographies of and Kılınç The contributions approach the relationship between migration, space, and place through a of theoretical of the papers focus on how migrants with the places they temporarily The paper by Farooq and Pfaffenbach (2025) with the notion of appropriation of space to for the ways in which temporary migrants of the city into places, while Brouck (2025) draws on the concept of to analyze how hypermobile migrants forms of in where they temporarily contributions turn more to the concept of place Lacroix and Misrahi-Barak (2025) understanding of place as a of and of Axelsson and Hedberg (2025) conceptualize the relationship between multiple and distinct places through a sustained with Massey's et al. from the local turn to analyze the of as an In the of Butler et al. the notion of is as a closed space, the open and relational space it which is only to the materialities as an important of the grounding of migration in place. For natural figure in several of the the concept of the ecotone highlights how through natural that are not to migration but a form of in their own and Misrahi-Barak 2025). Farooq and Pfaffenbach (2025) show how seasonal in the wadi with social structures, migrant relationship with place. The papers also this attention to beyond the natural environment. Brouck (2025) paper, for to everyday materialities – and a of – as through which hypermobile migrants temporarily their et al. (2024) turn their attention to and how they may as of encounters with migration, Axelsson and Hedberg (2025) show how migration may the and of and other Thus, a focus on materialities does not it highlights the grounding of migration, that context, and the of for the understanding of migration. temporal dynamics are also emphasized in the temporal seasonal rhythms, of and and For the of by space at the of Butler et (2024) paper through the of migrant gig time. The which between on for social In other a central role in the of a more-than-relational perspective. In Brouck (2025) paper, practices as temporal even temporary migrants to their experience of place. Farooq and (2025) analysis further shows that spaces themselves can be temporary, with seasonal producing that migrants' to with the papers also highlight the of and how to through and shape contemporary experiences and approaches (Axelsson and Hedberg 2025; Enβle-Reinhardt et al. Lacroix and papers as from space and that recognizing their is essential for a more-than-relational analysis of migration. what we see in the approaches to more-than-relational perspectives offered by these papers is an and dominant spatial assumptions in geographical migration studies. these assumptions it scholars to produce a more understanding of migration. Accordingly, with this SI, we to this to other migration them to in the spatial assumptions underlying migration studies and to on what a more-than-relational perspective could – for their The papers in this SI for dimensions often in relational approaches – for the of and alongside the social relations that make migration. As such, they also emphasize the importance of these more-than-relational spatialities in a rather than in relational understandings of space. research spatialities, further and the understanding of what lies beyond a purely relational view of space in geographical migration studies. The authors no specific for this The authors no of