Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This book focuses on the migration and settlement of Albanians and their children in different European cities. It analyses these processes by taking into account intergenerational transmission and views mobility as an inherent characteristic of contemporary lives, even where low-skilled and de-skilled migrants and their descendants are concerned. Building on central concepts in the social sciences and migration studies, such as identity, integration, transnationalism and intergenerational transmission, the book links these notions with the newer, developing theoretical and conceptual frameworks of mobility, translocality and cosmopolitanism . Identification, integration, transnational ties and intergenerational transmission are analysed in relation to institutional aspects of social systems as major factors affecting social relations (Giddens 1991). They are also seen in relation to time and space , in an effort to address a certain spatial and temporal essentialism that has typically characterized migration studies.

Using a variety of field methods, the book compares the ethnic identities, integration pathways and transnational ties of Albanian migrants and Albanian-origin teenagers in three European cities: London , Thessaloniki and Florence .Footnote 1 Greece , Italy and the UK are the three main European countries where Albanian migrants have settled during their short but intense migration experience of the past two decades, since Albania opened itself to the outside world after more than four decades of isolation under a communist regime . The research on which this book is based involved a 3–4-month period of field work in each of the above-named cities, where participant observation took place and interviews were conducted with quota samples of three categories of informants: parents , their second-generation teenage children , and teachers and other key informants within the ‘host’ society .Footnote 2 Using a strong qualitative and ‘grounded’ approach, the research aimed to construct a broad account of the Albanian first- and second-generation experience,Footnote 3 taking a transnational optic and based on inter-country comparisons. Its perspective includes the transmission of identity across generations and the multiple interactions of immigrants and their descendants within different societies across Europe and in the ‘home’ country.

One aspect that distinguishes this research from other studies on the second generation in Europe is that, whereas other research has focused on the second generation at an adult age , this book involves a ‘new’ second generation , or a second generation ‘in-the-making’. This is inevitable in view of the history and chronology of the Albanian migration in Europe , which dates only from the 1990s.Footnote 4 There are two main implications of this for the project’s approach. Firstly, it gives us a ‘privileged’ position for investigating processes of integration among a newly settled immigrant group and their descendants and for comparing and contrasting different national , city and local contexts where these processes were taking place. Secondly, this study draws attention to a group potentially ‘at risk’ of downward assimilation , based on the positioning of the first generation of Albanian migrants, especially their concentration in disadvantaged employment and housing and their strong stigmatization and discrimination (Bonifazi and Sabatino 2003; Hatziprokopiou 2006b; Markova and Black 2007) . In light of US-derived theories that emphasize role of the mode of incorporation of the first generation on the integration of the second generation (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Portes and Zhou 1993) , a disadvantaged starting point might result in entrenched downward mobility for the Albanian second generation.

The second generation in the USA and Europe came to the attention of researchers and policymakers only when it ‘came of age’ (Crul and Vermeulen 2006) . The literature from North America and Europe points to clear examples of failure to address issues of discrimination and exclusion , which led to the marginalization of large second-generation groups. Therefore, another major objective of this project is to provide evidence and inform policymaking on the integration of second-generation teenagers , thus taking a proactive approach towards the integration of ethnic minorities . In this respect, the study follows the strong emphasis of the European research on bridging gaps between research and policymaking on issues of integration. It also responds to European scholars’ concerns that, despite the growing interest in the integration of the second generation , research and policymaking in Europe have lagged behind in time and scope. For example, Crul and Vermeulen (2006) and Simon (2003) observe that in many European countries the lack of recognition of the second generation as a legacy of immigration led to a general apathy among scholars and policymakers.

In addition to responding to these policy concerns, this book shifts the focus to Southern Europe , where awareness of and interest in issues of second-generation integration are still at an early stage. Informed policymaking is particularly important in this context as the lack of coherent immigration and integration policies and the negative impact thereof on the second generation’s integration strategies have already been documented (Gogonas 2010; King and Mai 2009) . It also needs to be pointed out that the first wave of comparative research on the second generation was carried out in the main immigration countries of continental North-Western Europe (especially in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland); Greece , Italy and the UK were not part of past cross-national comparative research on the second generation in Europe (Crul and Vermeulen 2003) .

Comparative research is a growing trend in migration studies. Yet, very few studies take a cross-generational approach and simultaneously compare migrants and their descendants across different sites. A core argument for inclusion of the first and second generation in the current research is the characteristics of migration in this particular case: Albanian migrants and their descendants are settling at the same time . Inclusion of both generations seeks to elaborate on a general observation in the literature that ‘the mode of incorporation of the first generation endows the second generation with differing amounts of cultural and social capital in the form of job networks and values , and exposes them to differing opportunities, thus exerting differential pulls on their allegiances’ (Levitt and Waters 2002, p. 15) . Additionally, this design enables research on intergenerational transmission, which is currently an understudied topic. The focus on first-generation migrants and their descendants in this book is also related to recent developments in theorizing on migration. Portes (2010, p. 1557) maintains that a medium timeframe encompassing two or three generations is the best approach to studying migration; short-term approaches miss the durable effects of migration upon migrants and their descendants, whereas a long-term historical lens misses those effects already absorbed into the culture of the respective societies.

Studying the first generation’s aspirations for their children , and the impact of the first generation’s migration experiences on the second generation’s identity formation, therefore constitutes an important strand of this book. Few studies have integrated parents in their investigation. When this has been done, the information on parents has been considered as subsidiary to the data drawn from the second generation (see, e.g., Waters 1994). Only a handful of studies in the field of migration and integration of the second generation have recognized the role of the family as a source of social and human capital (e.g., Aparicio 2007; Dwyer et al. 2006; Marques et al. 2007) . Portes and Rumbaut (2001) and Rumbaut (1994) took a quantitative approach to investigate the second generation’s prospects of integration and the impact of parents’ status and child-parent relationships on the second generation’s adaptation . Crul (1999) investigated the role of parents’ socio-economic characteristics, their education in relation to their knowledge of the educational system of the host country, and their rural or urban background in relation to the process of acculturation —all this through interviews conducted with the second-generation youth . In contrast to these previous studies, the study presented in this book incorporates the experiences of the first and second generations and includes intergenerational transmission as an integral part of the research design, given that parents and their experiences have a direct and active role in shaping the second generation’s perceptions and integration expectations.

From a theoretical and conceptual perspective, the author has observed developments in various disciplines and linked these developments to the study of migration and the second generation. The inclusion of both the first and the second generation in the research design necessitated a linking of migration studies with key sociological and geographical concepts, such as space and place, mobility and cosmopolitanism , time and generation. In turn, interpretation of the findings required a shift between deduction and induction, and involvement of sociological constructs such as capital , agency and power . Such an approach elicited important conclusions on the integration of migrants and their descendants and on the meaning and role of context , which are discussed in the following sections. Further details on this research design follow later in this introductory chapter, the purpose of which is to introduce the reader to the theoretical areas referred to in this study, to introduce the ‘new’ Albanian second generation and the field sites, to set out the research questions and methods, and to provide a brief overview of each chapter.

1.1 Contextualizing and Theorizing Cross-Generational Migration Research

1.1.1 Identity, Integration and Transnational Ties

This book’s theoretical focus on identity, integration and transnational ties aims to provide a systematic comparative analysis of these concepts and their interactions, which is otherwise missing from the existing literature . Such an approach is highly relevant to the case of Albanian migrants and their descendants in Europe . Like many recent migrations, and perhaps because of its illegal nature (King 2003) , Albanian migration has not been studied in-depth in terms of identity and social and cultural integration. The focus has mainly been on the migration process itself, and on issues of regularization and integration in the labour market . This reflects a much broader trend in European scholarship on migration and ethnic relations. Drawing on public and political concerns in relation to migration, developments in this field have tended towards binary perspectives, seeing migrants’ integration in terms of a prominent public concerns (e.g., the labour market) or in terms of issues high on the political agenda (e.g., security or health) (Martiniello and Rath 2010).

Indeed, the theoretical reasons for reviewing the three main concepts of ethnic identity , integration and transnational ties are manifold. Firstly, the three concepts are complex and used in various, sometimes essentialized ways in migration research. Furthermore, most empirical research on ethnic identity, integration and transnationalism points to their interactions; however, they have seldom been analysed jointly. Classic studies of integration concentrate on ethnicity and assimilation , whereas more recent ones, starting from the mid-1990s’ emergence of the transnationalism paradigm, take for granted the role of identity, or just focus on transnational identification, assuming its automatic existence in the transnational phenomena (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002) . Over time, studies on identity in the context of migration have expanded, looking beyond ethnicity and bringing in other social markers, such as social class and gender (Anthias and Yuval-Davis 1992) . Nevertheless, studies of the second generation have typically retained a ‘hard core’ focus on ethnicity. In turn, there is little of a coherent theoretical framework on transnationalism, while culture and its impact on transnational phenomena have been under-researched (Levitt 2005) .

Interest in the so-called ‘second generation’ is itself a relatively recent trend in the academic literature on migration and integration. Originating in the USA in the past two decades, a whole body of research has grown out of observations that the integration strategies of the ‘new’ second generation (coming mainly from Latin America and Asia) represent more complex phenomena than those of the ‘old’ second generation—the children of migrants of European origin (Gans 1992) . In Europe, research on the second generation has followed societal and political concerns about the failure of European societies to integrate ethnic minorities , as well as comprising a purely academic interest. It is a common view among scholars of immigration that the integration of the second generation is an indicator both of the degree of integration of immigrants into a specific society and of the more general legacy of contemporary immigration (Portes 1994). Moreover, study of the second generation has given new dimensions to the integration and assimilation debate and opened up great opportunities for comparative research on integration processes, across countries and generations, and within and between ethnic groups (Thomson and Crul 2007) .

By the mid-2000s, research on the integration of the second generation seemed to have reached a stage of ‘maturity’, explaining different integration patterns as the outcome of an interplay of structure , culture and personal agency . There are, however, several ‘gaps’ and inconsistencies in the literature that highlight the need for further research. These have served as tenets for the design of the current study as a cross-cultural and cross-generational qualitative investigation of identity, integration and transnational ties. Firstly, scholars both in the USA and in Europe have argued that more attention should be paid to differences in identity formation processes and integration pathways between and within ethnic groups, in contrast to the tendency observed in previous research to see immigrant communities and ethnic groups as homogeneous entities. This essentializing tendency has been a particular worry for European scholars , as such an approach fails to capture the diversity of immigrants in Europe, in terms of national and ethnic origin, educational level, social class and religious background (Crul and Vermeulen 2003). Furthermore, most studies conducted on both continents have focused on the performance of the second generation in the spheres of education and the labour market , while issues such as citizenship , identity and transnationalism have remained understudied (Thomson and Crul 2007). In addition, a strong emphasis on quantitative methods and large surveys is identifiable, even while there was a growing awareness that such a methodology cannot fully capture the integration processes of the second generation. In particular, it fails to grasp the dynamics of identification processes and transnational practices (Jones-Correra 2002). European scholars have also alleged a failure of the major theoretical frameworks developed in the USA to explain different patterns of second-generation integration across Europe (Crul and Vermeulen 2003, 2006; Thomson and Crul 2007). Due to significant differences in institutional arrangements and policy frameworks between European countries, the opportunities that different national contexts offer to the second generation have been found to vary greatly (Joppke 1999) .

Research on the Albanian ‘second generation’, on the other hand, constitutes an important, original aspect of this book. This is the first full-length comparative study of the Albanian second generation. Its focus on minor descendants of migrants—here, adolescents aged 12–19 years—expands research on children in the social sciences in general, and within the migration literature in particular. Children were long excluded from the prime focus of migration research, being seen, at best, as their parents’ ‘luggage’ (Orellana et al. 2001, p. 578) . Only recently have children come to be seen as active agents and, therefore, as research subjects ‘equal’ to adults (Dobson 2009; Ní Laoire et al. 2010) . In many cases, research has focused mainly on children in harmful and dangerous conditions, thus excluding children who have migrated with their families, or it has viewed children only within the broad-brushed concept of family migration (Goździak and Ensor 2010). This book expands the literature on children and migration by referring to both children and to the family and role of the parents, as the latter are important factors affecting children. It does so with both a migration studies lens and a childhood and youth studies lens (Bushin 2009) .

Taking these theoretical considerations into account research for this book is articulated around five main sets of questions, presented below, reflecting the range and complexity of the project and of the issues under study:

  • What are the patterns of identification of the Albanian first and second generation? What is the role of ethnicity in identity construction?

  • Do Albanian migrants and their children establish transnational ties with the ‘homeland’ and the Albanian culture? If so, what is the nature of these ties?

  • What factors condition identity formation, transnational ties and pathways of integration, for example, the role of the family, the institutional framework and regularization processes?

  • What are the patterns of the intergenerational transmission of ethnic identity, integration and transnational ties?

  • How do ethnic identity, integration and transnational ties interact? What factors affect these interactions, and how do they ultimately impact on integration?

A grounded theory approach to data analysis uncovered complex interactions between these variables, which challenged major assumptions often employed in the study of migration and settlement of migrants and their descendants. The interpretations of data raised further research questions and required employment of alternative conceptual frameworks, as outlined later in this chapter, following an analysis of theory and research on the second generation.

1.1.2 Theories on the Integration of the Second Generation

The term ‘second generation’ refers to a heterogeneous group. Several authors have argued for a cautious use of the term in order to avoid methodological and conceptual problems related to it. Portes (1994) notes that the use of pan-ethnic labels fails to distinguish between native-born and foreign-born and overlooks the empirical diversity of the group. As King et al. (2006a) observe, there is a loose agreement on who is referred to as the second generation, namely native-born children of immigrants plus foreign-born children who arrived before primary school. However, further attempts to specify the group have produced terms like the ‘1.75 generation’, the ‘1.5 generation’ and the ‘1.25 generation’ (Rumbaut 1997) , referring, respectively, to foreign-born children arriving before the age of 6, between ages 6 and 12 and after age 12. A more recent trend is shown in the work of several authors (e.g., Fibbi et al. 2007; Marques et al. 2007) who use the term rather symbolically or refer to the ‘children of immigrants’. This book uses two parameters in defining generation. Apart from the classic one used by the second-generation literature, this book refers to the definition of Kertzer (1983, p. 128) who views generation as ‘a relational concept bound to the realm of kinship and descent’. Furthermore, it incorporates the meaning of generation put forward by Eckstein (2002), who maintains that generations are defined by the different social conditions they experience in their pre- and post-migration times.

Original theoretical models explaining the second generation’s identification and integration processes have taken a strong ethnic stance. The straight-line assimilation theory assumes that the more time spent in the host country, the more likely it is that the second generation will identify ethnically with the dominant group there (Waters 1990) . Similarly, the ‘second generation decline’ framework developed by Gans in 1992 is based on the assumption that, facing discrimination, the second generation will turn to the ethnicity of origin and establish subcultures opposing the mainstream in reaction to low expectations of educational and job market performance . Ethnicity provides another central framework in some key concepts of the identification patterns of the descendants of migrants, such as ‘optional’ (Waters 1990), ‘symbolic’ (Gans 1994) and ‘situational’ (Le Espiritu 1992) ethnicity. It should be noted that these approaches take an assimilationist perspective, and the empirical evidence they refer to speaks about the third and fourth generations of immigrants in the USA or cases in which ‘quantitative transformations of ethnic consciousness’ have happened over decades (Le Espiritu 1992, p. 2). There is an increasing recognition in the literature of within-group differences in terms of ethnic identification and a move towards a more complex and nuanced approach (Kasinitz et al. 2004; Song 1997) .

Therefore, scholars have expanded their focus when theorizing on the determinants and outcomes of the integration process of the second generation. ‘Classical assimilation’ theory, a model formulated in the US context of the ‘old immigration’ from Europe , seemed too simplistic for the new conditions many of the post-1965 immigrants and their descendants faced (Zhou 1997a). The theoretical argumentation of straight-line assimilation has been strongly opposed by some, based both on historical grounds and on cross-national comparisons (Waldinger and Perlmann 1998) . Meanwhile, the observation of Gans (1992, p. 175) that ‘the line of the theory has not always been straight and bumpy-line theory might be a more apt term’, was empirically supported by Portes and Zhou (1993). They also referenced ethnicity, but noted three alternative pathways for the second generation: assimilation into the poor underclass, acculturation and integration into the native middle class , and rapid upward social advancement relying on a strong ethnic community . Utilizing evidence from the experience of different ethnic groups in California, they put forward the theory of ‘segmented assimilation’ , which attempts to explain the factors that determine into which segment of American society an immigrant group is to assimilate (Zhou 1997a). The experience of the Punjabi Sikhs in Northern California revealed that the effects of a disadvantaged starting point, coupled with strong discrimination and racism , could be buffered with the help of social and material capital from the first generation. However, this strategy of selective acculturation—strong ethnic community cohesiveness as a source of pride to counteract discrimination—seemed not to work in the case of other ethnic groups. The case of Mexicans in Central California showed what Gans (1992) called ‘second generation decline’: a ‘lost race’ between first-generation achievements and second-generation expectations, leading to an orientation towards a reactive subculture as a means of protection against discrimination, which further inhibited the upward social mobility of the second generation (Portes and Zhou 1993, p. 89).

Does the theory of ‘segmented assimilation’ capture the whole picture of the second generation’s integration dynamics? Some of the most important ‘gaps’ in the theory are thought to be associated with its lack of recognition of differences within ethnic groups and of gendered patterns of integration (Waldinger and Perlmann 1998) . Furthermore, European scholars point to the irrelevance of the theory in the European context , due to the marked differences between national contexts on the continent (Crul and Vermeulen 2003). However, as recognized by Zhou (1997a), ‘segmented assimilation’ is a middle-range theory that tries to explain why different immigrant groups face destinies of convergence and divergence and describes the patterns and factors associated with these differential outcomes. It predicts that the possible determinants of integration outcomes are manifold, including factors at an individual and contextual level.

In effect, the ‘emancipation’ of theorizing on the integration of the second generation has followed the same line of conceptualization. A more recent view holds that the paths to integration diverge in various ways relating to structure , culture and personal agency , and the outcome of the integration process is largely decided by their interplay in a particular context (Thomson and Crul 2007). Neither did the ‘national context’ theories—the citizenship and institutional approach—put forward by European scholars survive the diversity and dynamics of the actual integration patterns of the second generation. The citizenship view takes a macro approach and focuses on the effects of the various national models of integration and their resultant impact on immigrant integration (Joppke 1999) . In contrast, the institutional approach observes that the probability of underclass formation is linked to the opportunities that national institutional arrangements for educational and labour market transition offer to the second generation, and that there is no direct relationship between the national models of integration and educational and labour market performance (Crul and Vermeulen 2003, 2006).

This theoretical emancipation is also associated with an evolution of the concept of integration and a focus on the local level to better understand integration processes. Thus, despite an ongoing heated debate on its definition, ‘integration’ is increasingly understood as both an organic process, shaped by factors operating at an individual and collective level, and a process which is conditioned by key events and legislative changes (Thomson and Crul 2007). As mentioned above, there is an important ‘gap’ in second-generation research regarding intergenerational transmission. This topic was the focus of some research in the 1980s (as reviewed by Zhou 1997b). However, the studies are very limited and there is still need for more research to identify its mechanisms and dynamics (Attias-Donfut et al. 2012; Nauck 2001; Portes 1998).

A more transgressive approach notes that, when investigating the factors affecting the integration process of the second generation, literature has primarily relied on a single frame of reference: the host society’s socio-economic traits and categories (Levitt 2009; Louie 2006) . Only recently have scholars started to focus on ties that the second generation establishes with the ‘homeland’ or its cultural heritage (e.g., Rumbaut 2002) , and the potential role that these variables can play in shaping the integration process of the second generation in the host society (Levitt and Waters 2002) . However, while it is widely recognized that the formative years of second-generation children are characterized by a process of reconciliation of the values held by their parents from the country of ancestry with those of the country where they live, the positioning of transnational ties in the literature on the second generation remains ambiguous (Wessendorf 2007a).

In the case of second-generation teenagers , as Reynolds (2004) observes, transnational ties lead to and become a form of ‘cultural hybridity’. This can encourage the construction of multiple ethnic identities, associated with a de-essentializing process of ethnicity. Thus, rather than being fixed in their ethnicity, the process of identification among the second generation is characterized by a constant negotiation of identity, referring to multiple frames of belongingness —‘homeland’ , ‘host country’ and even cosmopolitan references—moving away from a primary focus on ethnicity in plural social systems where they grow up (Colombo et al. 2009a; Wessendorf 2007a). Yet, viewing transnationalism and maintenance of ethnic identity as constantly coexisting phenomena would be rather premature. For example, De Vries (1999, p. 41) notes that the ethnicity of the Dutch Eurasians is ‘a highly individualised form of ethnicity, one constructed without close contact with the co-ethnics and without considerable participation in an institutionalised ethnic life’.

Consequently, an important question concerning transnationalism is whether transnational ties are a first-generation phenomenon or ties that persist in the second generation (Jones-Correra 2002; Vertovec 2001) . A general view holds that assimilation is more emphasized in the second generation and the maintenance of transnational ties by the children of immigrants is not uniform and is expressed in different forms of engagement, depending on parents’ socio-economic class and the context of integration (Morawska 2003) . However, in contrast to research conducted in the USA which shows that only a small percentage of second-generation respondents are involved in transnational practices (Jones-Correra 2002), Zontini (2007) notes that intensive transnational experiences can be found among second-generation adults in the Italian immigrant community in the UK . Furthermore, Foner (2002) concludes that the current second generation will probably be more involved in transnational practices than previous ones. As Reynolds (2004) observes, taking her cue from the experience of Caribbean families in the UK, the availability of telecommunications and other new electronic forms of communication has given great opportunities to young people to establish regular contact with family and friends living in other parts of the world. Parker and Song (2007) similarly highlight the role of the Internet in providing new diasporic public spheres, stimulating new forms of self-expression, collective identity formation and social action among the British Chinese in the UK.

Regarding the impact of transnational ties on the integration of the second generation , Foner (2002, p. 249) writes that ‘second-generation transnationalism is likely to be a mixed blessing’. Transnational ties can provide a ‘safety net’ to the second generation and serve as a resource activated against exclusion and lack of social capital in the host society . At the same time, transnational experiences can obstruct the strategies of the second generation to integrate and pose challenging demands on family responses. Portes (1999, p. 472) emphasizes the positive effect of transnational ties on the second generation in buffering discrimination. He points to the role of transnational activities in facilitating successful adaptation to the first generation and ‘softening’ the demanding and relentless process of acculturation for the second generation that often leads children to a forced assimilation, associated with the abandonment of their parental languages , unconditional adaptation to the norms and styles of the host culture and internalization of a feeling of belongingness to an inferior place in the social hierarchy. Morawska (2003) offers a useful summary of the combined patterns of transnationalism and assimilation of the second generation in the USA, building on comparisons between the mainstream middle-class/upwardly mobile and the lower-class/underclass first and second generation. She highlights differences in terms of ethnic identities, types of transnational ties/involvement and transnational activities in the ‘homeland’ . Furthermore, the transnational orientation of the second generation is found to change during the life course, starting to develop and peaking in adolescence, falling in adulthood with the introduction of marriage and children, and then again gaining importance in middle age and later life (Jones-Correra 2002).

To cite specific empirical examples, Louie (2006, p. 566) observes that multiple frames of reference inform the identity formation of second-generation adolescents and their views on education . She studied the ethnic and transnational orientations of Dominican and Chinese minorities in the USA and found that they referred to ethnic and pan-ethnic frames both in assessing their own educational attainment and mobility against their co-ethnic peers in the USA and in their homeland, and as a means to reconcile their marginalized incorporation in the USA along ethnic lines. Zinn (2005) looks at transnational links of a small sample of second-generation Albanian children as a source of better adaptation in Italy , in line with other studies that examine transnational ties as a resource employed by the second generation to counteract discrimination in the host country (Levitt and Waters 2002) . Zinn (2005) notes that, while practical and institutional arrangements in the host country pose challenges for the future maintenance of these links, the second generation’s experiences during visits in the ‘homeland’ also included instances of encountering barriers and difficulties in being accepted by Albanian society. In turn, studies of transnationalism among the second generation in adulthood have been associated with ‘roots migration’ or migration of the second generation to the parents’ country of origin. Wessendorf (2007b) studied the Italian second generation in Switzerland and shows that intensive transnational experiences during childhood and adolescence can have a strong impact on the second generation’s future life choices, extending beyond identification with the ethnic community and materializing in return migration (see also Christou 2006; Smith 2002) .

Increasingly, however, the literature on the second generation’s transnationalism is turning to a more integrated approach that criticizes research which conceptualizes generation as lineal, draws boundaries between the transnational and integrational experiences of different generations and overlooks various implications for the second generation of growing up in transnational social fields. In a detailed summary, Levitt and Jaworsky (2007) draw attention to the fact that, despite the existence and frequency of transnational activities and visits, being raised in transnational social fields gives the second generation certain skills and social connections which can be activated at different stages of life. More recently, Levitt (2009) notes that the transnational experiences of the second generation consist, in effect, of an integral part of growing up in a new destination. Second-generation adolescents , according to her, are not just passive receivers of the host society’s culture and observers of homeland traditions; living a transnationalized adolescence, they create their own practices, which leaves a legacy to younger immigrant-origin teenagers (Orellana et al. 2001) .

1.1.3 The European Second Generation

Whilst theorizing on the integration of the second generation has so far been dominated by US scholars, research on the second generation in Europe is rapidly developing. However, the research material on the two continents differs, due to several factors (Crul and Vermeulen 2003). For example, the danger of ‘underclass’ formation as an end-result of downward mobility, though common to both debates, seems particularly prominent in the USA in view of specific features of the US economy, society and urban structure , while the concept of an ‘underclass’ itself is deemed as inappropriate for research on incorporation in Europe (Martiniello and Rath 2010) . As Waldinger and Perlmann (1998) observe, there is a strong focus on the economic structure in the US literature while other factors (e.g., demography) are almost ignored. This creates a tendency among American scholars to see ethnic groups as homogeneous, which fails to capture the diversity of immigrants in Europe in terms of education , social class and religion (Thomson and Crul 2007).

It should be mentioned that ‘segmented assimilation’ —the model based on the divergent ways in which ethnic groups integrate into a receiving society—has inspired some initial research in Europe. However, scholars observe that, rather than a ‘segmented assimilation’, there is a ‘spotty’ social mobility across generations of immigrants in Europe (Simon 2003) . As a result, European scholars question whether a return to a modified form of ‘classical assimilation’ would better explain the integration patterns of the second generation in Europe (Thomson and Crul 2007). Furthermore, findings on the role of the ethnic community in the European second generation do not always support the ‘ethnicity as social capital’ assumption, which constitutes one of the pillars of the segmented assimilation hypothesis. In particular, clear differences have been found along gender lines within ethnic groups. Several studies conducted in different European countries find that the Turkish second generation is faring less well in education today compared to other ethnic groups, due to its ‘closure’, which is said to be a serious obstacle especially to the advancement of girls (see, e.g., Crul and Vermeulen 2003; Timmerman et al. 2003). Similarly, Worbs (2003) observes that gender-specific obstacles deter second-generation women’s upward mobility . She found that participation rates in vocational training and employment of the second generation in Germany are lower for young women of immigrant origin, although those women achieved higher educational levels than men .

Thirdly, an original development in European scholarship is the focus on the role of the national and institutional context , which is largely ignored in the USA, although cross-national studies are still needed to better understand the impact of the national context on the positioning of the second generation across Europe . Crul and Vermeulen (2006) compared integration indicators of the Turkish second generation across Europe and found significant variance in the opportunities that different national contexts offer. For example, the French educational system seems to encourage the second generation to pursue studies at university level , whereas the German context with its apprenticeship system ensures a smoother transition from school to the labour market , but blocks off access to university. As a result, Crul and Schneider (2010) put forward a new theory of integration, based on the experience of the second generation in Europe. The comparative integration context theory is based on the assumption that integration is deeply affected by differences in the contexts where integration takes place—more precisely, the institutional arrangements in education , the labour market, housing , religion and legislation . The other major assumption, which is in line with other scholars’ arguments (e.g., Glytsos 2005; Portes 2010), is that rather than focusing on the present state and the final outcome, integration should be studied by focusing on the underlying processes over time .

The educational performance of the second generation in Europe varies greatly across countries and different ethnic groups (Crul and Vermeulen 2006). Several studies on school performance of European second-generation pupils show that educational performance is generally improving, however, alongside high drop-out rates. Simon (2003, p. 1105) , for example, reports that 46 % of the Turkish second-generation youth left school without any diploma, compared to an average of 25 % in France. However, these data conceal those immigrant-origin students who do succeed. Westin (2003) notes high drop-out rates among the second-generation migrant-origin youth in Sweden, but also an over-representation of this second-generation youth among those who perform well in comparison with native Swedes. Similarly, Timmerman et al. (2003), on the second generation in Belgium, report that while a relatively high proportion of Moroccan boys drop out of school and become marginalized, the proportion of those who do very well at school is twice as large. In explaining variations in educational performance, Crul and Vermeulen (2006) list a number of indicators found in the national systems of education across Europe that have clear implications for the differences between countries in educational performance of the second generation . Major factors include school duration, face-to-face contact hours with teachers , selectivity and the amount of supplementary help and support available to children within and outside school. However, inter- and intra-group differences in educational performance are seen to be an outcome of an interplay between social and economic exclusion , discrimination in education, ethnic cohesion and values , and the supportive role of family members (Crul and Vermeulen 2003).

While there is a tendency to consider educational attainment as a ‘predictor’ of subsequent labour market integration and upward mobility (Dronkers and Levels 2006), recent research shows that this expectation can ‘fail to materialise’ in the case of the second generation (Fibbi et al. 2007, p. 1139). Data from different European countries show an improvement in the educational performance of the second generation coupled with higher unemployment rates and concentration in low-profile jobs, compared to the native population in the same age range and educational level (Aparicio 2007; Simon 2003; Timmerman et al. 2003; Westin 2003) . These data speak of a problematic transition to the labour market and provide further support to the hypothesis of discrimination in the host society towards second-generation communities (Fibbi et al. 2007), returning the focus once more to structure and policies .

1.1.4 The Albanian Second Generation

The main features of the Albanian second generation are inevitably related to the history and chronology of Albanian migration in Europe . Contemporary Albanian migration dates only to the beginning of the 1990s, and its dynamics developed rapidly during the past two decades, which has clear implications for the age range and integration strategies of the second generation. According to statistics of the Government of Albania (2005) , the largest communities of Albanian migrants in Europe are found in Greece (600,000), Italy (250,000) and more recently in the UK (50,000). World Bank (2011, p. 54) estimates confirm 600,000 Albanians in Greece, but increase the figure for Italy to 400,000. The flows to Greece and Italy date from 1990 and 1991. The flow to the UK dates mainly from the late 1990s. However, due to high rates of family reunification and settlement , Albanian children constitute the largest second-generation group in the first two countries (Gogonas 2010; King and Mai 2009) . In Greece , from calculations based on census and other sources, Baldwin-Edwards and Kolio (2008) conclude that, of the 120,000 non-Greek residents of all ages born in Greece, the largest group of 110,000 were of Albanian origin. Data from Italy likewise reveal a rapid growth of the Albanian pupil population, which accounts for 17.7 % of the population of students of immigrant descent and makes them the largest foreign-origin group (Caritas data, cited in King and Mai 2009). The data from Greece and Italy point to the fact that the majority of the second generation is foreign-born. This is also expected to be the case of the Albanian second generation in the UK, which became a receiving country for Albanian migrants only a little over a decade ago (King et al. 2006b).Footnote 5

The Albanian second generation in Europe is a new and almost completely unstudied group. Some expectations of their integration prospects can be derived from data on the performance and integration of the first generation , which would indicate a disadvantaged starting point for the second generation. Research has shown that Albanian migrants in the three main receiving countries are concentrated in low-status jobs, live in marginalized neighbourhoods , do not organize in communities and face strong racial discrimination (Bonifazi and Sabatino 2003; Hatziprokopiou 2006a; King et al. 2003; Kosic and Triandafyllidou 2003; Mai 2005) . The discrimination documented against the first generation points to the importance of studying ethnic identity in this particular second generation.

Moreover, following the major theories on second-generation integration would lead us to conclude that the Albanian-origin youth will soon repeat the story of those ethnic minorities in the USA and Europe that have faced downward assimilation into the poor ‘underclass’. This implication can be derived especially from Portes and Zhou (1993) who consider the concentration of the first generation in poor inner-city neighbourhoods and the presence of racial discrimination as factors that are likely to negatively influence the integration of the second generation. The absence of an ethnic community should also bear serious implications, as Portes and Rumbaut (2001) consider the pathway of ‘selective acculturation’ —a strong ethnic identity and a second generation embedded in the ethnic community—as the best scenario for successful integration of the second generation .

It should be mentioned immediately that the most recent research shows striking signs of improvement in the situation of Albanian migrants in the main host countries. According to King and Mai (2008, 2009), Albanian migrants in Italy are the most integrated migrant group among all non-EU migrant groups. Similarly, Hatziprokopiou (2006a) points to an improvement of living and working conditions and better integration of Albanian migrants in Greece in recent years, especially after the migrant regularizations of 1998 and 2001. However, strong negative stereotypes in the media persist (Bonifazi and Sabatino 2003), and Albanians show little tendency to identify with the ethnic culture , to establish organizations and to use institutional structures (King and Mai 2009; Mai 2005) . Research has also highlighted the negative impact of the institutional environment and policy implementation practices on Albanian migrants’ socio-economic integration and perceptions of identity (Kosic and Triandafyllidou 2003) . In particular, Gogonas (2010) points to the negative impact of a very tight citizenship and naturalization regime , which in Greece causes a great deal of insecurity surrounding the integration of immigrants, with further consequences for the second generation’s efforts to become part of Greek society. The Greek results are supported by the findings of Zinn (2005) in Italy . These data raise concerns about the integration of the Albanian second generation—firstly, because the mode of incorporation of the first generation is recognized to have significant impact on the amounts of cultural and social capital transmitted to their descendants (Levitt and Waters 2002). Research conducted in Switzerland and Austria (Fibbi et al. 2007; Herzog-Punzenberger 2003) has also found a strong relationship between naturalization, school performance and labour-market integration.

But how are these conditions affecting the Albanian migrants and their children? There is very little data on the Albanian second generation. Some attention has been given to the issues of integration of the descendants of migrants in the two main ‘host’ countries (Greece and Italy) . Meanwhile, the Albanian second generation in the UK is to date completely unexplored. Anecdotal and journalistic accounts from Greece suggest a high educational performance of Albanian-origin students. Thus, while gender and length of residence in Greece are significant variables related to school performance, Albanian students in Greece outperform other foreign-origin students. Studies conducted in Italy show similar results: generally, high educational achievements on the one hand, but also a marked tendency of male students to leave education and enter the labour market in early adolescence. For example, Fava (2007) studied the educational performance and the integration of children of immigrant descent in schools in different provinces of Italy. Pupils of Albanian origin record high academic attainment, with girls significantly outperforming boys; but somewhat counter-intuitively Albanians also score high on intentions to quit after middle school. Furthermore, while Zinn (2005) reports that in Italy early-years schooling of children is important to Albanian migrants, Fava (2007) shows Albanian parents to score lower than the average of the first generation in Italy in their interest towards the educational performance of their children and their desire for their children to pursue studies at university level .

Without overlooking the importance of the above-mentioned studies, this existing research in Italy and Greece takes mainly a limited-variable quantitative approach and offers a general overview of the second generation as a whole, while inter- and intra-group comparisons and qualitative research on their identification processes and integration strategies are largely missing. Some evidence on these topics comes from the studies of Zinn (2005) and Gogonas (2010) on the intergenerational transmission of native language and the role of the educational system in Italy and Greece, respectively. Educational systems and the general schooling policy on foreign-origin children differ significantly between countries in Europe and, likewise, between Greece , Italy and the UK (Eurydice 2004). The educational system in the UK is legally bound to actively promote racial equality , although research has documented some negative issues related to the integration and performance of ethnic minorities in education (Chadderton 2010). The system in Italy is characterized by a general climate of indifference toward multiculturalism and intercultural education (Zinn 2005), whereas in Greece schools take an ethnocentric approach and focus on monocultural and monolingual teaching, reflecting an exclusionary Greek national identity (Benincasa 2002). Gogonas (2010) emphasizes the incapacity of teachers to recognize the importance of bilingualism, widely acknowledged in the literature as a factor that promotes academic achievement and expectations among immigrant-origin teenagers (Golash-Boza 2005).

1.1.5 Moving Back and Forth Between Theory and Data

The design of this research observes major theoretical and conceptual frameworks on identity, integration and transnationalism, as well as the key studies on the second generation discussed above. However, several of its findings called for a review of major strands within migration research and for links with major sociological and geographical notions. Firstly, the data called for an analysis of migrants’ and their descendants’ understanding of contexts of integration. Accordingly, symbolic and spatial ‘units’ of reference in terms of identification, integration and transnational ties, often equated with the notion of nation-state , were unpacked and analysed referring to space , place and mobility. Along these lines of argumentation, both the comparative design and the city-based approach of this research take into account findings on cities and migration, and thus respond to the lack of research on the way children of migrants relate to their urban context. Cross-cultural research on migration primarily consists of studies that compare migrants across nation-states. But it is not only national settings that vary. Recently, cities have become increasingly prominent in the literature on the incorporation of immigrants (Brettell 2000). In fact, as White (1999) maintains, cities are a product of migration (both internal and international), yet they have only recently been analysed as distinct contexts of incorporation . This omission is related to an assumption that has long been the rule in migration studies—that nation-states are homogeneous entities as settings for migratory phenomena (Glick Schiller and Çağlar 2009, p. 183) . As a result, data taken from research in cities have been considered as representing the situation in the whole nation-state, although paradoxically most research has been conducted in ‘gateway’ cities: those cities where immigrants initially settle and which attract significantly more immigrants. Nevertheless, research on cities as migration contexts is still lacking, especially regarding the second generation (Christou 2011) .

The inclusion of the first and the second generation in the current research also uncovered a differentiated view on movement and mobility, which can be linked to major recent developments in social sciences research. While the study of the second generation has significantly contributed to our understanding of identity, integration and transnationalism, a new paradigm has taken the social sciences by storm. Mobility emerged as a key concept in the 2000s, offering new insights on the conceptualization of culture , identity and transnationalism (Salazar 2011) and greatly impacting the study of cosmopolitanism . Szerszynski and Urry (2006, pp. 114–115) define cosmopolitan predispositions and practices as extensive mobility in relation to many places and environments, further characterized by consumption, curiosity, willingness to take risks, ability to understand, semiotic skill of interpretation and openness. The role of mobility is emphasized in cosmopolitan practices. Yet, although transnational practices and ties are considered a favourable precondition, they are insufficient for the growth of cosmopolitanism (Kofman 2005; Sheller and Urry 2006) . Seen as the antidote of place, being in itself a socialized movement (Cresswell 2006) , the concept of mobility furthermore emphasizes the spatial and temporal characteristics of multiple forms of movements of people (Glick Schiller and Salazar 2013) .

In integrating mobility into the study of the intergenerational processes of migration and settlement , this book, however, refers to the definition of mobility by D’Andrea, Ciolfi and Gray (2012, p. 150):

As both predicament and opportunity, new globally-related mobilities do not mean free movement in a ‘flat world’, but rather index a complex of actual, potential, uneven and disabled possibilities that are unequally actualized across multiple domains and fractures of social life.

Concepts of mobility and cosmopolitanism have been criticized as concentrating on elites. There have been claims, especially in the case of cosmopolitanism but also for mobility, that these concepts ignore the power differentials that impact the access of different groups to the practices to which they refer (see, e.g., Beck 2002) . Despite their focus on elites, these concepts proved useful in the current study in analysing the processes and imaginaries that characterize migration and the everyday lives of Albanian migrants and their teenage children. The findings of this research thus contribute to our understanding of locality, mobility and cosmopolitanism in relation to the integration of low-skilled or de-skilled migrants and their descendants in European cities. Empirical findings related to these concepts are presented in Chaps. 2 through 6.

Furthermore, this research examines integration dynamics using the concepts of agency , capital and power. Bourdieu (2004) is clear on the role of capital in the structure and functioning of the social world. He defines capital as ‘accumulated labour (in its materialised form or its “incorporated”, embodied form) which when appropriated on a private, i.e., exclusive basis by agents or groups of agents enables them to appropriate social energy in the form of reified or living world’ (ibid., p. 15). Theoretically, capital is seen to have different forms, varying from financial capital and human capital , in terms of quantifiable assets, to different forms of social capital, which refers to the processes of social interaction that provide benefits to individuals (Bankston and Zhou 2002; Portes 1998).Footnote 6 This book views capital as a utilitarian resource, which is either harnessed and enhances integration or is lacking among the first and second generation, leading to their marginalization and absence of social mobility . Findings show that different forms of capital impact on the integration of the first and the second generation , with the capital that is disposed of and transmitted by the first generation affecting the integration of the second generation.

More specifically, the findings of this book are in line with theoretical work maintaining that capital is interrelated with power and agency, with the possession of capital resting on the basis of power, and with power marking agency (Bourdieu 1989) . A common view in the literature that recognizes power as a factor shaping the social world is that people are situated in different social locations, which are influenced by power hierarchies. Power hierarchies are also taken as the mechanisms that make individuals subjects through the imposition of categories, and the control they have on the law of truth , which individuals must recognize and others should also recognize in them (Foucault 1982, p. 781) . In turn, power and agency are interrelated. As Ratner (2000, p. 430) maintains, the individual notion of agency as based on personal meanings ignores the barriers that agents encounter in their struggles for a sense of equality , democracy and fulfilment.

These ‘mega’ concepts have been integrated in migration research, but they have not been the basis of significant theoretical development in the field. In a recent review article, Bakewell (2010) maintains that migration theories have either overestimated the role of agency or structure , or gone for a middle ground, but none have analysed in-depth the actual impact of these aspects of social reality on migration processes. Other questions remain unanswered regarding the role of capital and power.

  • To what extent does capital impact on the integration of immigrants and their descendants?

  • What kinds of capital affect the identification, integration and transnational ties of the first and the second generation, respectively?

  • Is capital and its effect on identification, integration and transnational ties contingent on time and space?

  • How do the first and second generation perceive capital and power and their importance for integration?

These questions are little studied in migration research. This book makes a modest contribution towards answers, based on detailed empirical evidence.

1.2 Introducing the Field Sites: Immigration Politics and Ethnic Relations

1.2.1 Britain

Like many European countries, Britain has experienced sizeable levels of immigration in its modern history . However, the post-war migrants, including large non-white and non-Christian immigrant cohorts, arrived earlier in Britain than in most other countries in Europe. The 1960s and 1970s were a time of immigration restrictions for the country, at least as far as labour-migrant recruitment was concerned (Kymlicka 2000). This situation, as in the rest of North-Western Europe, changed rapidly by the beginning of the 1990s. The decade of the 1990s was one of substantial net immigration as a result of the British government’s programme for voluntary migrants and waves of asylum-seekers (Hampshire 2005) .

Favell (1998) , however, notes a distinct dualism in British immigration and integration politics. The discourse seems to be divided between the issue of nationality and border control, on the one hand, and strong measures for ethnic minority integration, on the other hand. This emphasis on the development of multiculturalism is also associated with a persisting focus on race and an emphasis on the integration of post-colonial migrants, thereby overlooking the new migrants. This was later rephrased by Favell (2000) who cites research showing that race and ethnicity in Britain nowadays bear less importance than class and other social factors in marking minorities’ integration, or rather their lack thereof .

Other literature suggesting that race and ethnicity have lost their importance could, however, be rather premature. For instance, Platt (2005) examines the social mobility of the second generation, finding that although education and class of the parents matters, particular ethnicities and religions are also important predictors. Cross (2000, p. 364) notes that the integration of those populations that are more similar to the majority has been more difficult than for those with a distinctively divergent cultural origin. He explains this within the framework of pluralism and separatism applied towards minorities in Britain. The integration of post-colonial migrants, according to Cross, has succeeded via the outcome of offering them ‘the benefits of non-integration’ and concessions in the form of ethnic entrepreneurship and community resources. This strengthens the rationale underlying claims that the old framework, focusing on race relations, is inadequate for analysing the conditions of new migrant groups in Britain.

Three main features characterize the new immigration to Britain: the reduction of immigration from Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean and South Asia; increased migration from Eastern Europe and East Asia; and the opposition towards asylum-seekers, as scepticism regarding their legitimacy has increased (Berkeley et al. 2006, p. 1). The issue of the new migrants is especially pertinent in relation to the laws and practices on asylum, as the 1990s recorded, as mentioned above, a substantial rise in the number of asylum applications . Hampshire (2005) argues that the recent tendency to acknowledge the positive impacts of migration is associated with an increase in emphasis on welfare parasitism, stigmatization and penalization of asylum-seekers and an increasing antagonism towards sponsored immigration. New Labour policies further eroded the rights of asylum-seekers, considering them to be a threat to the management of migration waves (Flynn 2005); and the new coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats seems even more determined to reduce immigration, including highly skilled and student entrants from outside the EU .

Although fewer migrants entered Britain in the 1990s compared to most other European countries (this changed in 2000s, especially after 2004), the new migrants have been made unwelcome. They are ‘blamed’ for the further increase of immigration into the country and for ‘ruining’ the balance of privileges and rights already in place for the old minorities (Favell 2001) . Britain became a destination for Albanian migrants only in the late 1990s. Although their numbers are small compared to other minorities in the country, Albanians arrived when the political discourse was already characterized by stigmatization and penalization of asylum-seekers and an emphasis on the negative impact of new arrivals on school, health and welfare systems (Hampshire 2005). The size of the community is hard to estimate, and different figures are reported both from official sources and key informants . An IPPR report on new communities settling in the 1990s in Britain estimated the Albanian community to be just under 2,300 in 2001, compared to just 150 recorded in 1991 (Kyambi 2005). The Government of Albania reports the Albanian community in Britain to be the third largest in Europe, estimating it at around 50,000 (Government of Albania 2005). Key informants interviewed for this research maintain that the community has grown to 100,000 .

1.2.1.1 London

Immigration in London is not a recent phenomenon. Indeed, historians go back 250 years when looking for the origins of London as the ‘city of nations’ (Akroyd 2000, p. 701). The same is true for its multicultural tensions, but also its openness and acceptance. As such, London has a particular position in Britain’s immigration history. Its variety and heterogeneity have impacted the notion and redefinition of Englishness itself. Holmes (1997), furthermore, points to London as a principal destination and location for many immigrant groups, whose immigration and residence experience in Britain is bounded within the capital.

London’s dynamic relationship with immigration is very much related to its character as a global city with an imperial past (Eade 2000). Like other global cities, London is characterized by an increase in informalization and casual labour markets—an aspect closely related to immigration as a source of low-wage labour for economically marginal sectors of production, including the service economy (Sassen 1991) . However, compared to other global cities, such as New York and Los Angeles, up to the early 1990s the growth of low-paid employment in London was impeded by a relatively generous welfare system and a limited supply of ‘fresh’ migrant labour. But then, with the increase in immigration over the past 20 years, a notable ‘migrant division of labour’ has emerged in London, characterized by a disproportionate growth of managerial jobs and a lower, but still significant, growth in low-paid jobs, the latter being mostly taken by new migrants. The emergence of such a divide necessitates a closer look at the place and lived experiences of migrant workers in London, as such polarization brings with it major political challenges, which negatively impact the situation of new migrants, most of whom are constrained to low-grade jobs (May et al. 2007).

Most of the research on global cities, and on London in particular, has focused on the economic dimension of the local, urban impacts of globalization . Relatively few studies have focused on the everyday experiences of ordinary people (Dürrschmidt 1997). Eade (1997) points out the lack of research on the meaning of such structural developments for individuals and how they relate to collective categories such as ‘classes’ and ‘minorities’. The racialized boundaries between insiders and outsiders are found to be still in evidence in the transition of London from an imperial to a global city, and while the attention of researchers and commentators has been on the inner-city areas, it is often in the outer suburbs that a more general process of racialization takes place. Eade (2000) maintains that assimilation can be questioned on several grounds: racial beliefs of the native population enhance the exclusion from the white majority of African- and Asian-origin populations; many of these minorities prefer to keep their own culture and pass it on to future generations; the second and third generations of these minorities are creating new cultural identities, which in turn challenge assumptions about a coherent and lasting national culture within which all newcomers should assimilate .

The integration of new migrants exhibits worrying features, too. Together with the polarization of the labour market and the lack of secure low-waged jobs, the reception of new migrants throughout the country, and in London in particular, is found to be affected by the local labour market, local housing pressures, local and regional demographics, and political leadership on migration. The integration of new migrants is especially hampered by the diversity and pace of new migrations, which in turn affect the information available to the local authorities. Besides, there is a widely held view among public authorities that ‘race relations’ refers to the established white communities and ‘visible’ ethnic minorities, but not to the new European immigrants, while the required emphasis on local-level integration is still misconceived (Pillai et al. 2007).

The situation with new migrants becomes even more problematic when the large number of ‘illegal ’ immigrants is considered, and the fact that no large-scale regularization campaign has ever taken place in the UK . Recently this issue seems to have come to a high level of discussion, at least within London, with the mayor of the capital advocating the regularization of illegal immigrants through an ‘earned amnesty’ scheme, estimating the number to be 400,000 in London alone (cited in Vollmer 2008). The initiative seems to be supported by the general public in London, set against a background of negative media coverage and immigration policies that insist on a regime of law and order against irregularity (Vollmer 2008). London, however, is not a homogeneous entity, and this should be taken into account in any analysis of processes associated with it, such as the ‘new’ migration of Albanians .

1.2.2 Greece

Like other EU countries, debates on diversity and related issues in Greece encompass the ‘old ethnic minorities’ and the new immigrants of the 1990s and thereafter, although in the latter case the weight placed on the diversity ‘issue’ is of a larger scale . Set against a history of large-scale emigration in the 1950s and 1960s, Greece became host to a considerable number of immigrants after 1989. By 2007 the number of immigrants is reported to have reached 1.2 million or 10 % of the total population and 12 % of the labour force, giving Greece one of the highest percentages of immigrants within the EU (Gropas and Triandafyllidou 2007, p. 9) .

Albanians in Greece constitute the largest Albanian migrant community in Europe (600,000; Government of Albania 2005). They are also by far the largest immigrant group in Greece. With calculations based on census and other sources, Baldwin-Edwards and Kolio (2008) conclude that, of the 120,000 non-Greek residents of all ages born in Greece, the largest group of 110,000 were of Albanian origin. Immigration of Albanians in the 1990s was largely irregular ; the only way to immigrate legally was through a tourist visa or family reunification procedures. However, the first regularization programme for immigrants in Greece was not until 1998, and two-thirds (241,561) of the undocumented immigrants regularized that year were Albanian (Hatziprokopiou 2006a) .

On the other hand, the predominance of one ethnic group among the new immigrants makes the Greek case unique in Europe. Rovolis and Tragaki (2006, p. 99) maintain that the ‘average’ immigrant worker in Greece is young, male and from an ex-communist country, pointing to a clear gender division in the reasons and forms of migration. However, although most immigrants come from the neighbouring countries of Central and Eastern Europe, newer waves originate in Asia and the Middle East, and to a lesser extent in Africa (Baldwin-Edwards and Apostolatou 2008, p. 21). As a result, immigration patterns in Greece are affected and represent features of three different models: the Balkan model, the Southern European model and the global model (Fakiolas and King 1996). Specific patterns of immigration to Greece reflect proximity between countries of origin and destination, the sudden transition of Greece into a migrant-receiving country, greater weight of specific immigrant groups (notably Albanians) and immigrant ethnic Greeks, a late policy response towards immigration, and specific features of the Greek economy and labour market (Hatziprokopiou 2004) .

In effect, migration policy in Greece is characterized by a lack of legal migration channels, reactive measures against largely illegal immigrant flows, and a fragmentation of existing measures that often causes previously regularized immigrants to revert back to illegal status (Gropas and Triandafyllidou 2007) . The Greek authorities have been reluctant to accept that immigrants are settling and creating communities (Baldwin-Edwards 2009; Triandafyllidou and Veikou 2002). Very minimal measures have been made for immigrants’ integration. Those that are in place focus on assimilation, ignoring the increasing diversity in Greek society, while migrants’ legal uncertainties significantly affect their economic bargaining power , impeding their integration (Baldwin-Edwards 2009). Triandafyllidou and Veikou (2002, p. 191) attribute some of the delay in authorities’ response towards immigration to the novelty of the phenomenon, while the lack of an integration policy reflects the fiercely ethno-cultural definition of Greek nationality and citizenship . This also shows up in policy implementation and institutional culture.

The definition of Greek nationality and citizenship is rooted in the way Greek identity is constructed (Kapllani and Mai 2005). The main historical influences on Greek nationalism are the Enlightenment, which impacted the building of nation-states in Europe, and Greece’s classical past, which contributed to a conceptualization of the Greek national community as both singular and universal (Gropas and Triandafyllidou 2007).

Tzanelli (2006, p. 40) takes the discussion further, pointing to a conflation of the discourse on Greek national identity with that of race , because of the symbolic references to Greekness as based on ‘blood bonds’. She maintains that the Greek identity is composed of two main discursive layers. First, the ‘civic’ and the ‘ethnic’ are interchangeable in the Greek identity. Second, the naturalized status attached to the ethnic notions of identity creates the potential for ethnic identity to take racial connotations, also inspired by the international definition of Greekness as unique and practices of homogenization at the European level (2006, p. 45) . Other research relates the emergence of this conflation to the social changes that have taken place in Greece since the late 1980s and the country’s ambivalence of belongingness (e.g., in Europe, in the Balkans , in the Mediterranean), which impacts the perception and definition of difference. This has caused the emergence of racism based on both biological and cultural characteristics, which greatly impacts the opportunity structure and positioning of immigrant groups (Lazaridis and Koumandraki 2001).

Nevertheless, Greek national identity has been under significant pressure in the past 20 years and has shown signs of transformation in response to changing international and internal conditions (Kapllani and Mai 2005). Immigration as a new phenomenon in the 1990s has been an important factor in this transformation, but also in revitalization of the racist discourse (Triandafyllidou 2000). However, the development of this new identity has been slow to emerge and impact on policies and their outcomes for immigrant and minority-origin residents in Greece (Baldwin-Edwards 2009). The problematic situation of the welfare system in Greece adds to the difficulties that immigrant families face (Hatziprokopiou 2004) . Many immigrant-origin children drop out of high school to enter the labour market. The recent economic crisis has only compounded the problems of survival for immigrants there.

It is important to see developments in Greece within the larger context of global developments. As a result of these, changes in national identity are under way, and immigration policies are being impacted by external pressures exerted by EU integration and the large immigrant population in the country (Hatziprokopiou 2004) . Nevertheless, the emergence of a kind of de facto multiculturalism has found partial recognition in public debate, so that cultural and religious diversity is slowly being recognized (Rovolis and Tragaki 2006). Yet, at the same time , the presence of immigrants has made evident the different traits of Greek identity by leading to the construction of a hierarchy of Greekness, with different immigrant groups at different levels around the ethno-national main core (Triandafyllidou and Veikou 2002, p. 189; Tzanelli 2006) .

1.2.2.1 Thessaloniki

Thessaloniki is the second largest city in Greece, with over 1 million inhabitants. It is also one of the oldest cities in Europe, dating back to 315 BC, with a continuous urban history and a rich multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan past (Mazower 2004). Its diversity is related to its positioning between Western Europe, on the one hand, and the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean on the other, which has given Thessaloniki both Oriental and Occidental features . While other cities in Greece expanded without planning, Thessaloniki was characterized early on by strong governmental policies (Leontidou 1990).

Early policies were broadly related to the nation-state building process and the foundation of the Neo-Hellenic state in Greece in the nineteenth century. Moreover, the city experienced two major events in the early twentieth century that brought about key changes in its urban structure—the great fire of 1917 and the arrival of 117,000 refugees after the war with Turkey in 1922 (Hastaoglou-Martinidis 1997, p. 494). Also relevant, however, were the emerging nation-state and its ideology (Mazower 2004). This ideology gave rise to a process of modernization which influenced the shaping of the city towards three purposes: to ensure a link with the West, to disguise its rural past and its related memories of foreign rule and backwardness, and to provide a conduit between the ancient past and the modern new state (Hastaoglou-Martinidis 1997).

Thessaloniki was, as a result, created as a ‘new’ European city, to restore ‘civilisation’ , with its space arranged according to models adopted by other European nations. This reformed the old traditional town according to the needs of a centralized state and the new urban space was seen as a laboratory for creating new social values through a homogenized and unified structure. This in turn impacted the social, demographic and ethnic composition, especially noticeable in the case of the main ethnic and religious communities and, even more so, in placement of the refugees, who were dispersed across different areas of the city (Hastaoglou-Martinidis 1997). These spatial divisions persist today, with the eastern part being richer than the western areas and a mixed centre, although the presence of a large and dispersed middle class softens the social divisions (Hatziprokopiou 2004) .

In effect, the refugees and the state’s policy on their settlement reflect broader issues related to attitudes towards multiculturalism and diversity. Although the city’s history is marked by significant discontinuities, the different pasts, notably the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman periods, were largely denied through publishing programmes, research institutes’ agendas and the educational curriculum . This is clearly seen in the renaming of public places, the erasure of the Ottoman period and its heritage, and the denial of the refugees’ presence who were assimilated through various policies, despite their contribution to the transformation of the city into a regional metropolis (Hastaoglou-Martinidis 1997). Thus, inspired by nationalist claims and emphasizing the Hellenic past at the expense of other important influences, the city’s claimed history is rather one of ‘forgotten alternatives and wrong choices of identities assumed and discarded’ (Mazower 2004, p. 474).

Currently Thessaloniki is host to a large number of immigrants and, like many other Mediterranean cities, it is transforming itself into a multicultural metropolis. Immigrants in the city account for 7.2 % of the total number of immigrants in Greece, the main groups being Albanians (75 %), Georgians (9 %) and Bulgarians (5 %) (Hatziprokopiou 2004) . Thessaloniki’s migrant population is thus mainly composed of immigrants from the Balkans and the former USSR; Athens is far more mixed and diverse. The new immigrants are gradually contributing to the city’s urban transformation, through their use of social space, their residential settlement , and the characteristics of the labour markets they have access to. Their integration and participation in the different domains of social and economic life is significantly affected by their regularization , whereas their settlement appears to follow the social geography of the city , which may well counter segregation trends fuelled by exclusion by the locals. In turn, immigrants’ cultural proximity with the natives impacts their visibility and adaptability in the city (Labrianidis and Hatziprokopiou 2010) . However, spatial proximity does not lead to social proximity, as inclusion and exclusion operate differently in different domains and levels. Various factors, such as national origin of the migrant population, the time spent in the receiving country, agency, place and the proximity offered by the common Balkan context appear to be interdependent elements that shape every migrant’s incorporation experience (Hatziprokopiou 2006a, pp. 269–270) .

Nevertheless, at a city level, the impact of the new waves of immigrants has uncovered old debates on the city’s complex cultural identity. So far, the new discourse on multiculturalism lacks substance (Mazower 2004). Perhaps not surprisingly, due to its historical past, the city has been the epicentre of harsh debates over the issue of the name of Macedonia, objections against the use of the Rotonda, a Roman monument, as a cultural centre, the downplaying of its Ottoman past in favour of its Byzantine tradition when chosen as a European capital of culture, objections towards the non-inscription of religious beliefs on the Greek identification cards, and brutal abuse of the rights of immigrants, both first and second generation (Hatziprokopiou 2006b) . These issues reveal the city’s continuing difficulty in coming to terms with the diversity within .

1.2.3 Italy

Italy has a special profile in relation to the history of immigration in Europe, due to its long tradition of emigration and switch to being a country of immigration starting from early 1970s. The reversal from mass emigration to mass immigration matches that of Greece, but in the Italian case the ‘migration turnaround’ started two decades earlier (King et al. 1997) . The Italian turnaround was a consequence of three main trends: the slow decline in emigration after its peak in the 1960s, the subsequent growth of return migration , and then the rapid increase in the number of immigrants, starting in the 1970s and escalating from the 1980s onwards (King and Andall 1999).

There are several differences between contemporary immigration in Italy, the earlier migrations in Northern Europe and the later immigration to Greece. First, the number of immigrant groups is significantly larger in Italy, while their relative size is far smaller. This has implications for integration policies. Second, there are fewer families entering Italy, but a larger number of single migrant women, and migration from Eastern Europe and South Asia is more significant than that in Northern Europe (except South Asians in Britain) . Third, the colonial experience is insignificant in Italy; rather, immigration is taking place in a more transnational world than when previous waves of immigration to Northern Europe and the USA took place (Grillo 2002) .

The employment and integration of immigrants in Italy is differentiated according to gender, nationality and regional location. Indeed, the impact that the different labour market opportunities across the regions have on the recruitment and distribution of migrant labour is one of the distinctive features of Italy as an immigration country. This impact is more concretely seen in the migrants’ working practices, in their possibilities for social integration and in their internal mobility within Italy (King and Andall 1999, p. 147). Strong identities of Italian cities are thought to underpin the fragmentation and regionalism within Italy, which persists in its contemporary history. Although since 1948 the development of a more cohesive national identity is noticeable, regional ‘roots’ are still very visible, ‘vocalized’ by regional dialects that act to counter the development of strong national identity since they keep alive the local or regional culture (Moss 2000) .

As with Greece, the political response to the reality of immigration has been delayed and fragmented. Immigration policy has been organized around three overlapping but broadly consecutive stages: the control agenda, the social agenda and the difference agenda (Grillo 2002, p. 16) . Scholarly work initially focused on ‘push’ factors in the sending countries, overlooking the changing nature of Italian society (Calavita 2005; King and Andall 1999, p. 144) . Migration started to be treated as a policy issue only in the mid-1980s (Bonifazi 2000; Boswell 2003), characterized by a politically opportunistic stance and a short-term approach (Foot 1995; Triandafyllidou 2000). This is partly explained by the involvement of the Catholic voluntary sector in organizing the response to immigration, which in turn had an impact on the character of immigration policies, putting the focus on assistance-oriented measures (King and Andall 1999). Even so, the first initiative and framework for immigrant integration policies was established only in 1998 under the Turco-Napolitano Law (Gabrielli et al. 2009).

According to Zincone (2006, p. 347), Italian immigration policies are characterized by three main strands. There has been some continuity in the stance taken towards immigration despite the frequent changes in governmental coalitions. Second, the authorities have mostly focused on the conceptual part of policymaking rather than the actual policies. Thirdly, despite strong public opposition towards immigration, which grew especially during the 1990s, Italy is known for its frequent mass regularizations of illegal immigrants (Boswell 2003, p. 123). It should be mentioned, however, that immigration legislation has continuously tended towards restrictive measures. These changes partly reflect internal political pressures, but also the impact of the EU legislation and the positioning of Italy in a series of international migration systems that cross East and West, South and North. Italy is one of the founding members of the EU, and the country’s geographical position makes it a gateway for the entry of immigrants into the EU (Favell 2002; Triandafyllidou 2000) .

Similar to other nation-states that have become immigrant-receiving countries, the arrival of immigrants in Italy has triggered important discussions on national identity. The particular response that each country formulates towards immigration varies according to the transnational migration experiences of each society, the philosophies of integration developed in recent decades and the national political cultures (Grillo 2002, p. 4) .

Albanians arrived in Italy in the early 1990s when Italian society itself was undergoing a major transformation in order to subscribe to new discourses of European identity (King and Mai 2008, p. 19). Albanians are nowadays one of the largest immigrant groups in the country, exceeded only by Romanians. They have challenged the established notion that skin colour is the signifier of immigrant status. These ‘new others’ are characterized by their large relative size as an immigrant group and by their cultural, economic and moral ‘difference’ from Italians (King and Mai 2008, 2009). The settlement of Albanians in Italy now shows signs of rapid stabilization and integration. This is firstly seen in the increasing number of women, who in 2001 consisted of 40 %, compared to less than a quarter in the early 1990s. More importantly, the number of Albanian-origin pupils in Italian schools increased tenfold from the 1990s through to the 2000s, and Albanian-origin children are the largest foreign-origin group in Italian schools (King and Mai 2009, citing Caritas Migrantes 2009).

1.2.3.1 Florence

Florence is one of the most celebrated Italian cities and a major centre of international culture. Its history and overall identity are related to its medieval and Renaissance treasures, which make Florence one of Italy’s prime artistic and commercial centres, but also a very popular touristic attraction. Perhaps as a result, conceptualizing Florence and its ideology as a city and as a living context over thousands of years is not easy. Yet, Florence has played an important role in the political, cultural and economic life of Italy (White 2000).

Florence was at the centre of the nation-building process. It became the capital of Italy in 1865, 4 years after its unification. The city also pioneered Italy’s early economic development. Moreover, Florence’s ancient city centre, with an urban tradition that dates from the age of Dante , has marked the historiography of the Italian city in a wider sense (White 2000, p. 40). Florence is also associated with Italian unification and the establishment of the Italian national identity. Due to historical fragmentation within Italy, even upon unification in 1861 there was no language known as Italian, apart from a fourteenth-century Florentine language that was used by the great Tuscan writers of that century and known by a small elite at the time. It was the prestige of Florence and writers such as Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio that influenced the choice of the Florentine dialect as the official language of Italy. It remains today the national language and continues to serve as a strong basis on which a sense of belonging to the nation is built (Moss 2000).

Florence’s strong local identity, however, also exhibits signs of closure and exclusivity towards newcomers. White (2000) goes back to the writings of Dante and points to a dualism in the vision that Florentines held of their city. The myth of an earlier Florence was contrasted with the commercial dynamic of the urban culture, while at the heart of the dualism were the nuova gente—people migrating from the surrounding areas and further afield, attracted by the possibilities offered by its dynamic economy. A parallel can be drawn here between the past and the tense encounters since the 1990s between newly settling immigrants from abroad and traditional city dwellers . Nowadays Florence is a touristic centre and cultural repository, which brings substantial revenue to the city’s economy. The city’s diversity is growing, and 10.3 % of its population of over 364,000 people at the end of 2007 were foreigners . In 2008, foreign residents in Tuscany numbered 309,651; nearly a third of whom resided in the province of Florence, the largest of Tuscany’s ten provinces. Four immigrant communities are numerically dominant in the Tuscan region: Romanians (64,280, 20.8 %) , Albanians (61, 940, 20.0 %), Chinese (26,050, 8.4 %) and Moroccans (24,150, 7.8 %). The Chinese are particularly numerous in Prato, a city-province adjacent to Florence. The Romanians, on the other hand, are mainly recent arrivals, so that for the second generation and school-age cohorts, it is the Albanians who are by far the most numerous foreign-origin group in Florence and Tuscany (and in fact in Italy as a whole; for details see Caritas/Migrantes 2009) .

The discourse on immigration continues to refer to the image of a ‘divided city’ over the settlement of new ethnic communities, suspected as unable to ‘fit in’.Footnote 7 As White (2000, p. 70) furthermore puts it:

The forms of reaction on the part of pre-existing Italian communities to the sheer cultural otherness detected in a gente nuova while in part a continuum from Dante’s time to our own have significant inflexions in the present. In other words civic insularity both endures and takes new forms, which is not the least reason for its being so hard to root out.

1.3 Research Design and Methods

The research for this book took a qualitative and comparative approach . Other scholars working in the field of immigration and integration note that qualitative research is most suitable for capturing the transnational and identity experiences of the second generation (Jones-Correra 2002). Another point in favour of qualitative methods is the fact that, compared to other second-generation groups in Europe, the Albanian second generation is a significantly smaller community (except in Greece), whose profile and dynamics can best be captured through relatively small-scale and intensive studies.

From a philosophical point of view, a ‘loose’ social constructionist perspective—the idea that we construct both our realities and the way we interpret them—shaped the approach and understanding of the narratives of respondents in this research (Burr 2003). Social constructionism is not radically relativist; it differs significantly from postmodernism in its acknowledgment that certain universal aspects of human life exist, and is based on the assumption that there is a variety of representations of the social world and human psychology, as there are some essential attributes of people and processes. Critical realism is another epistemological approach, which stands at the opposite pole from postmodernism (Harré 2002). In vogue in the 1980s, more recently migration scholars have returned to critical realist epistemologies in order to develop more sound migration theories (Bakewell 2010; Iosifides 2011). Overall, critical realism places a strong emphasis on the importance of processes, based on continuous conceptualization and reconceptualization (Pratt 1995). This approach resonates closely with research conducted for this book, based on multiple processes—migration, identity formation, integration, transnationalism, intergenerational transmission—and, therefore, intersected with social constructionism to shape the overall research process and data analysis and interpretation. Another reason for the adoption of a critical realist approach for this book is because, as Iosifides (2011) contends, realist qualitative methods have the potential to develop ‘explanatory critiques’. These critiques enable specific ideological constructions to be linked on the basis of their relationship to structures of exploitation and power asymmetry. As such, they can contribute to social change by explaining how unequal relations are produced and reproduced.

Due to the complexity of the research aims and questions research for this book took a multi-sited comparative approach. The multi-sited approach responds to the long-standing question of the value and the positioning of the ‘local’ in single-sited ethnography (Falzon 2009). This, coupled with the post-1990s focus on transnational phenomena, required a move to multiple sites of observation and participation that bridge dichotomies such as the ‘local’ and the ‘global’, ‘lifeworlds’ and the ‘system’ (Marcus 1995, p. 95). The case for comparative multi-sited research is also supported by recent writings on the second generation and transnational childhood , which highlight the need for closer attention both to the differences between national contexts and to the role of local settings (Morawska 2003; Thomson and Crul 2007; Zeitlyn and Mand 2012).

Accordingly, the current research is based on what is known as a divergent comparative approach (Green 1997), in that it examines Albanian migrants and their descendants at three different research sites, following the migrants as they ‘diverged’ out from a common point of origin: Albania . Context was analysed as a composite of the national and city levels. According to Hantrais (1999), cross-national studies should contextualize the social phenomenon under examination by referring to national institutional settings. However, a newer approach in comparative studies has emphasized the need to focus on internal differences within nation-states . The city as context has been particularly highlighted in migration research, with a focus on differences between cities in terms of structure, ethnic composition, historical patterns of minorities’ settlement , and the size and characteristics of the immigrant groups concerned (Favell 2001; Foner 1998) . Glick Schiller and Çağlar (2009) propose an approach that moves away from a focus on so-called global cities and the typical criteria related to them, such as density of population and economic power. They suggest instead an approach that considers all cities as global and which focuses on city scale , whereby attention is given to a city’s positioning in a field of power against regions, states, multi-state entities (such as the EU) and the ‘world system’.

These considerations are reflected in the design of this study. Firstly, the three city-sites differ significantly. The main differences are related to regimes of diversity, history of immigration and time of arrival, and relative size of Albanians as an immigrant group at each of the sites. The UK stands out as a country with a long history of immigration, where Albanians consist of one of the ‘new’ migrant groups arriving in the 1990s. Although they are potentially a sizeable group among the new immigrants, the size of the Albanian population is rather insignificant when compared to the old minority groups of Asian and African origin. This contrasts with the situation in Greece and Italy, where Albanians arrived in large numbers in the early 1990s, when the two countries were experiencing a structural shift from being countries of emigration to ones of immigration. Due to the differences in each of these two southern countries’ ideologies of nationalism, however, the position of Albanians as an immigrant group differs, with implications for attitudes and policies on immigration and integration—and, above all, on the experiences of the migrants.

The three cities also differ significantly in size and in their urban cultures and politics. While London is a ‘global’ city, Florence and Thessaloniki are smaller urban centres. ‘Super-diverse’ London has pioneered British multiculturalism —although not completely successfully, given that many immigrant-origin communities remain concentrated in deprived areas and suffer from various forms of social exclusion. Meanwhile, within a country still broadly hostile to immigrants, Florence has been the first city to adopt pro-immigrant measures, and the region of Tuscany is the main centre of the development of interculturalism in Italy. In contrast, Thessaloniki has witnessed some of the harshest racist events towards immigrants and diversity in Greece. These differences have affected the course of settlement and perceptions of integration of Albanian migrants and their children, as we will see in later chapters.

There are, however, significant differences between the Albanian communities in the three countries. In Greece , most Albanian migrants are low-skilled and from working class and generally rural backgrounds (Hatziprokopiou 2006a) . Albanian migrants in Italy come proportionally more from middle-class backgrounds and from the more urban and relatively prosperous parts of the country (King and Mai 2008). This has implications for the selection of first- and second-generation participants, since parents’ social class and educational level are widely associated with the second-generation’s educational performance and integration prospects (see, e.g., Van Niekerk 2007). Finally, the Albanian community in the UK is much smaller than those in the other two receiving countries, it arrived more recently and most of its member come from the mountainous and poor northern region of Albania (King et al. 2003).

Data collection took place over a 1-year period starting in December 2007. Fieldwork was designed to include three stages, each taking place over a 3-month period (with an intermission of 3 months between June and September 2008). Ethnographic research was accompanied by in-depth interviews and focus groups . The three sets of participants were children of Albanian migrants within the age range of 12–19; first-generation Albanian migrants (parents of adolescents or of children approaching adolescence); and teachers or principals in the mainstream schools attended by Albanian-origin pupils. In addition, 12 key informants were interviewed across the three sites: five in London, three in Thessaloniki and four in Florence . These were Albanian community activists and others with knowledge of the Albanian community . The total number of interviews amounts to 167.Footnote 8

The average age of teenagers interviewed was 15.5 years; the average time spent in the receiving country was 10 years, so most of them could be classified as the ‘1.5 generation’ (Rumbaut 2002) . Parents’ average age was 42 years, and they had been in the migration countries for an average of 12 years. Pseudonyms were used for all parents and children. In the case of the children, attempts were made to keep their pseudonym similar to the ‘category of name’ they held in reality—for example, in a case of a child in Greece being baptized and holding a Greek name or a second-generation teenager born in Albania but given an Italian name.Footnote 9

The decision to include adolescents as participants was based on three main lines of reasoning. Firstly, because the Albanian migration took place since the 1990s, the Albanian second generation is concentrated in young age brackets. Secondly, ethnic identification processes start to develop and are found to be particularly dynamic during adolescence (Phinney 1992). Finally, articulating issues of identity and discrimination would be demanding for children of a younger age, which would consequently bear higher risks and ethical implications.

It is worth mentioning that research for this book involved ethical and positionality issues. The project involved participants from different groups, in terms of age, nationality and social status, and took place at three research sites located in three different countries. More importantly, the topics covered, such as identity perception, discrimination and parent-child relations , and the methods used, which required substantial time and contact with the participants, could make research seem ‘invasive’ and make access even more difficult than, for example, a study of migrants’ structural integration. Furthermore, several scholars and professional bodies note that the researcher should expect special issues to arise when working with minors (American Sociological Association 1997; Barnardo’s Statement of Ethical Research Practice; Lindsay 2000).

One of the main issues that emerged as crucial in terms of guarding the participants’ interests and well-being was ensuring double consent in the case of minors: the consent of parents or teachers to the children’s participation, and the consent of the children themselves. The literature leaves latitude for this requirement to be waived where it is clear that participation in the research involves minimal risk or risks no greater than those in everyday life, where parental permission is impossible or would not protect the child or young person, and where the emotional and social maturity and particular vulnerabilities of the young people have been evaluated and the risks of participation are considered to be low (ASA 1997). It is not straightforward to obtain consent for children and young people to participate in research. For example, as parents and teachers are entitled to be legal representatives of minors, they may impose their attitude, leading to possible coercion.

Following Christensen (2004, p. 165), children in this research were considered as ‘fellow human beings’; therefore, they were treated equally in terms of informed consent but also in terms of their opinion during and after the interview process. Indeed, some of the most interesting spin-off findings on children’s integration derived from ‘final word’ questions included in the interview schedule for the children. These questions invited the latter to express their opinion on the interview itself and to offer their ‘expertise’ on the issues that their co-ethnics face in the respective location. Some of the ‘casual’ final suggestions made by the teenagers that I found revealing and helpful for future work were that it would be good to ask those who had finished school whether they are working or are in the street (Albi, London), to see how an Albanian-origin teenager can be successful and famous in school despite her or his origin (Maria, Thessaloniki) and to take into account that integration can also depend on the person and not only the place (Klotilda, Prato).

Ethical issues were not limited to experiences in the field. Since there is a gap between research and the desired positive impact on policymaking, documenting migrants’ experiences, presenting them formally and making these accessible to a broader public raises concerns about the use that could be made of the study. This reflects one of the major ethical dilemmas posed by Crow (2000, p. 69) and a question that every researcher should ask: the purpose of researching a particular topic. A mismatch between groups’ portrayal in research findings and their own expectations of the research could lead to rejection and resentment from the communities studied, as has been experienced by other researchers (e.g. Scheper-Hughes 2000). Cognizance of this risk shaped my overall approach to data analysis and dissemination.

Nevertheless, the way I was perceived in the field and the attitude of the people I worked with towards me were significantly affected by my sharing the same nationality as those researched, by my being single and a professional woman, and especially by the combination of these traits. Firstly, my dual position as a co-ethnic ‘insider’, but also an ‘outsider’ in terms of education and socio-economic status, shaped interactions in the field. Like Kraidy (1999, p. 461), my positionality was affected by two main world views: the ‘native’ culture and the world view of the ethnographic, academic, systematic and, therefore, instrumental knowledge. My entry to the field, however, was more complicated, as I was entering Albanian ‘communities’ in other countries and I already had ‘imaginative’ relationships with each of these countries. In the end, through my work with the various communities in Europe, I was also perceived and could have acted as a ‘diasporic agent’ . This was also seen to be in the participants’ interest in the other communities in Europe where research had taken place—and it will be more ‘materialized’ in this book, which will, in turn, contribute to the establishment of virtual links to these same communities.

1.4 Book Outline

This book is organized in six chapters. After the key theoretical assumptions and concepts, context and methods are introduced in Chap. 1, the focus shifts to the presentation and discussion of the findings. Chapters 2 through 5 present findings around the major concepts involved in this research: ethnic identity, integration and transnational ties, followed by a chapter on intergenerational transmission. Chapters 2 through 4 are organized in two main sections, starting with an analysis of the relevant data on the first-generation Albanian immigrants as parents of teenagers and then continuing with data on the second-generation teenagers. Chapter 5 analyses the intergenerational transmission of identity , integration and transnational ties by focusing on the main emerging themes, respectively. The final chapter encompasses the three main concepts and the intergenerational transmission, and discusses the findings of each empirical chapter, focusing also on the interrelations between these concepts as they played out in the data. Throughout these five chapters the comparative context of the three countries and cities is highlighted where relevant. Summaries of the chapters are presented below.

Chapter 2 is the first in a sequence of four ‘results’ chapters. The main focus here is on the role that ethnicity plays in the identity formation processes of both the first and the second generation. As all of the following chapters in this book, it starts with a theoretical discussion of the main concepts—in this case identity and ethnicity. This theoretical discussion is followed by a section on the identities of the first generation and a subsequent section on the identities of the second-generation teenagers. The chapter integrates the findings of this project with literature on identity and ethnicity in different life stages, and on ethnic identity of immigrants and their descendants. The findings show that there are important differences between the first and second generation in how they experience identity. While the first generation experiences its identity mainly in relation to roles and status, the second generation’s identity is mostly focused on age-related emotions and activities, although in-group differences are significant. In terms of ethnic identification, however, one of the main results of this research is that the ethnicity of origin, as least in primordial terms , is not a main reference point in the identification processes of the Albanian migrants and their children. Locality impacts the identification of migrants and their descendants. As mentioned above, city identity and urban culture is important for the identification of these groups, especially in the case of the teenagers. This identificational trend is particularly evident in Florence where teenagers make strong references to the local culture and its universal value.

Chapter 3, on patterns and dynamics of integration, employs various concepts commonly considered under the umbrella concept of integration. These are referred to here to capture variation in the composition and history of immigration of Albanian immigrants in each country studied. The chapter investigates structural and socio-cultural integration and thus draws from the literature related to each of these types of integration as well as on studies that encompass the two; for example, experiences of the second generation with the educational system. Although the spatial and demographic context plays a significant role in shaping differences in terms of integration across the three sites, the socio-economic background and capital of the first generation appears to affect the integration of both migrants and their children. More importantly, the way the two generations conceive their integration is significantly different: parents and children strive to integrate into different sectors of the receiving society. In very broad terms, social and cultural integration is much more appreciated by the second generation, while the first generation puts most of its efforts into structural integration. The second generation also has a different appreciation of the opportunity structures than the mono-dimensional appreciation by the parents, who aim with their migration project at economic prosperity and education for the children.

Chapter 4, on the patterns of transnational ties between generations, is broadly based on the finding that transnational ties can vary among different generations and across different research sites. This chapter investigates this variation, describing and analysing the establishment, maintenance and disruption of transnational ties and factors that influence such instances for each of the generations. The findings are analysed in relation to other research in the field. Transnational ties show different patterns between and within the two generations. In the case of the first generation, integration is usually prioritized over transnational ties, especially in terms of distribution of family resources and the orientation towards future life goals. The concepts of ‘transnational ways of being’ and ‘transnational ways of belonging’ (Glick Schiller 2004) find support in the data, although both were found to change over time. Transnational ways of being are common among both the first and the second generation. Transnational ways of belonging are more emphasized among the first generation, although this belonging is mostly to their past in Albania and to their families, rather than a symbolic belongingness expressed in the name of an ethnic group towards a homeland . In turn, the geographical approach, emphasizing space and place, and associated mobility tendencies and orientation, is more of a second-generation phenomenon. The teenagers are also significantly more prone towards mobility and cosmopolitan imaginaries and practices compared to the first generation.

Chapter 5’s focus is on the patterns and mechanisms of transmission between generations. The intergenerational transmission of ethnic identity, integration and transnational ties is analysed by examining the relevant processes rather than end-state ‘outcomes’. For example, the intergenerational transmission of transnational ties goes beyond what is already discussed in the literature—that is, whether transnational ties are only a first-generation phenomenon or persist in the second generation. Far from a ‘quantifiable’ process, intergenerational transmission appears here as complex and fragmented. Its features appear to be changing over time, involving redefinitions by both parents and children of concepts, values, practices and their importance. Intergenerational transmission appears as a two-way process, largely conditioned by parents’ capital and experiences of discrimination of both the first and the second generation. Means and strategies of transmission are focused on counteracting stigmatization and are characterized by a lack of focus on ethnic identity and culture of origin, in favour of endowing the second generation with universal values and life-long lessons.

Chapter 6 rounds off the analysis with a review of and answers to the research questions summarized in Chap. 1. It also considers implications and avenues for future research in the field. The final main research question of this book deals with the relationship between ethnic identity, integration and transnational ties and the factors that affect this relationship drawing on findings presented in Chaps. 2 through 5. The book ultimately explains identification, integration and the development of transnational ties by referring to agency , power and capital, seen here as contingent on time and space. While the insistence of the parents on their children’s education appears in this study to be an important factor, as in many other studies of the integration of the second generation (e.g., Modood 2004; Zhou 1997b), the main finding of this study is that capital appears in various forms and levels and impacts on integration while different forms of capital are differently important for the first and the second generation. Financial and human capital emerge as important for the first generation, which is able to ascertain through experience that expertise and skills in the workplace will give them more security and increase their agency. As mentioned in Chap. 3, social capital based on individual characteristics that affect socialization , and are derived from peer group networks —an aspect completely ignored in the second-generation literature—is very important for the immigrant-origin adolescents to feel integrated. Mobility appears to be both a form and an outcome of capital and, therefore, an important factor in this cross-generational analysis, pointing towards differences in terms of integration outlooks, aspirations and perceptions of the first and the second generation.

The book ends with a call for a reassessment of the term ‘second generation’, drawing attention to the essentialist focus on the children of migrants as a particular and homogeneous group—a status that is forged in the academic and policymaking settings. The findings ultimately show that the particularities of identification, integration and transnational ties of the children of migrants are affected by structural factors and are not inherently idiosyncratic to this group.