SavedAdd your journal

Journals / HUMANITAS - Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 23

Between Empowerment and Surveillance: Forced Migration and Information and Communication Technologies

Güçlendirme ve Gözetim Arasında: Zorunlu Göç ve Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri

Mustafa Ammar Kılıç(TEKİRDAĞ NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, FEN-EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ, SOSYOLOJİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-7498-4650
Muhammed Yasir Bodur(SAKARYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ORTA DOĞU ENSTİTÜSÜ)0000-0002-0906-9966
Pages
287–312
Publication Date
2024-03-14
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It seeks to identify the ambivalent positions in digital migration studies and assess migrants’ potential empowerment through ICTs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Amidst a surge in migration from conflict zones across the Middle East and Africa, leading to the arrival of more than a million displaced individuals in Europe, a nascent research field, primarily explored by European scholars, examines how information and communication technologies (ICTs) reshape refugees’ experiences during and after migration.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study systematically and critically reviews digital migration literature from 2006 to 2021 with metadata obtained and synthesized from Scopus and Dimensions databases, investigating the interplay between forced migrants’ use of digital technologies to navigate restrictive migration systems and their interaction with surveillance technologies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It seeks to identify the ambivalent positions in digital migration studies and assess migrants’ potential empowerment through ICTs.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Zorunlu göç · Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri · Gözetim

Abstract

Amidst a surge in migration from conflict zones across the Middle East and Africa, leading to the arrival of more than a million displaced individuals in Europe, a nascent research field, primarily explored by European scholars, examines how information and communication technologies (ICTs) reshape refugees’ experiences during and after migration. This emerging inquiry explores how ICTs can empower displaced migrants, enhancing their resilience and enabling survival, family connection, adaptation, inclusion, and rights advocacy. Concurrently, recent studies in the area of border and surveillance underscore technology’s pivotal role in shaping security-oriented agendas within migration and mobility regimes across the US, EU, and other nations. This study systematically and critically reviews digital migration literature from 2006 to 2021 with metadata obtained and synthesized from Scopus and Dimensions databases, investigating the interplay between forced migrants’ use of digital technologies to navigate restrictive migration systems and their interaction with surveillance technologies. It seeks to identify the ambivalent positions in digital migration studies and assess migrants’ potential empowerment through ICTs.

Özet

Orta Doğu ve Afrika’daki çatışma bölgelerinden gelen göç akışı, neredeyse bir milyondan fazla yerinden edilmiş insanın Avrupa'ya varmasıyla sonuçlanınca, özellikle 2015’ten itibaren Avrupalı akademisyenlerin ön ayak olduğu yeni bir araştırma alanı ortaya çıktı. Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin (BİT) mültecilerin göç süreçlerindeki ve sonrasındaki deneyimlerini nasıl dönüştürdüğünü inceleyen bu araştırma gündemi, bir yandan yerinden edilmiş göçmenlerin BİT’leri hayatta kalma mekanizmalarını güçlendirecek şekilde nasıl kullandıklarını incelemekte; öte yandan bu araçların aile bağları, uyum ve hak arama gibi alanlarda onlara nasıl destek sağladığını ele almaktadır. Aynı zamanda, sınır ve gözetim çalışmalarındaki son gelişmeler, göç rejimlerindeki güvenlik odaklı hedeflerin şekillenmesinde teknolojinin kritik rolünü vurgulamaktadır. Bu çalışma, Scopus ve Dimensions veritabanlarından elde edilen ve sentezlenen meta verilerle 2006-2021 arasındaki dijital göç literatürünü sistematik ve eleştirel bir şekilde gözden geçirerek, zorunlu göçmenlerin kısıtlayıcı göç sistemleriyle başa çıkmak için dijital teknolojileri nasıl kullandıklarını ve gözetim teknolojileri ile girdikleri etkileşimleri incelemektedir. Böylece, dijital göç çalışmalarına hâkim bu ikircikli pozisyonların teşhis edilmesini ve BİT’lerin göçmenleri güçlendirme olasılığı konusunda bir çıkarıma varmayı amaçlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kılıç, M. A., Bodur, M. Y. (2024). Between Empowerment and Surveillance: Forced Migration and Information and Communication Technologies. HUMANITAS - Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 23, 287–312. https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.1388211

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (87)

  1. AbuJarour, S., Wiesche, M., Andrade, A. D., Fedorowicz, J., Krasnova, H., Olbrich, S., Tan, C.-W., Urquhart, C., & Venkatesh, V. (2019). ICT-enabled refugee integration: A research agenda. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 44(1), 874–891. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04440
  2. Ahn, K. (2017). Ambivalent gender power in interstitial space: The case of transnational South Korean mothers. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 23(2), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2017.1317701
  3. Ajana, B. (2013). Asylum, identity management and biometric control. Journal of Refugee Studies, 26(4), 576–595. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fet030
  4. Alam, K., & Imran, S. (2015). The digital divide and social inclusion among refugee migrants: A case in regional Australia. Information Technology and People, 28(2), 344–365. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2014-0083
  5. Alencar, A. (2018). Refugee integration and social media: A local and experiential perspective. Information, Communication & Society, 21(11), 1588–1603. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1340500
  6. Alencar, A. (2020a). Digital Place-Making Practices and Daily Struggles of Venezuelan (Forced) Migrants in Brazil. In K. Smets, K. Leurs, M. Georgiou, S. Witteborn, & R. Gajjala (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media and migration (pp. 503–514). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526476982
  7. Alencar, A. (2020b). Mobile communication and refugees: An analytical review of academic literature. Sociology Compass, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12802
  8. Alencar, A., Kondova, K., & Ribbens, W. (2019). The smartphone as a lifeline: An exploration of refugees’ use of mobile communication technologies during their flight. Media, Culture & Society, 41(6), 828–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718813486
  9. Alencar, A., & Tsagkroni, V. (2019). Prospects of refugee integration in the Netherlands: Social capital, information practices and digital media. Media and Communication, 7(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1955
  10. Andrade, A. D., & Doolin, B. (2016). Information and communication technology and the social inclusion of refugees. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 40(2), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2016/40.2.06
  11. Bacigalupe, G., & Lambe, S. (2011). Virtualizing Intimacy: Information Communication Technologies and Transnational Families in Therapy. Family Process, 50(1), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01343.x
  12. Baldassar, L. (2014). Too sick to move: Distant ‘crisis’ care in transnational families. International Review of Sociology, 24(3), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2014.954328
  13. Baldassar, L. (2016). De-demonizing distance in mobile family lives: Co-presence, care circulation and polymedia as vibrant matter. Global Networks, 16(2), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12109
  14. Belloni, M. (2020). When the phone stops ringing: On the meanings and causes of disruptions in communication between Eritrean refugees and their families back home. Global Networks, 20(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12230
  15. Benítez, J. L. (2012). Salvadoran transnational families: ICT and communication practices in the network society. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(9), 1439–1449. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2012.698214
  16. Borkert, M., Fisher, K. E., & Yafi, E. (2018). The best, the worst, and the hardest to find: How people, mobiles, and social media connect migrants in(to) Europe. Social Media and Society, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118764428
  17. Bradley, L., Lindström, N. B., & Hashemi, S. S. (2017). Integration and language learning of newly arrived migrants using mobile technology. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2017(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.434
  18. Broeders, D. (2007). The new digital borders of Europe: EU databases and the surveillance of irregular migrants. International Sociology, 22(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580907070126
  19. Broeders, D., & Hampshire, J. (2013). Dreaming of seamless borders: ICTs and the pre-emptive governance of mobility in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(8), 1201–1218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.787512
  20. Burrell, J., & Anderson, K. (2008). “I have great desires to look beyond my world”: Trajectories of information and communication technology use among Ghanaians living abroad. New Media and Society, 10(2), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807086472
  21. Castles, S. (2004). Why migration policies fail. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(2), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141987042000177306
  22. Castro, L. A., & Gonzalez, V. M. (2008). Being part of the life of one’s hometown: Strategies to support community connectedness. PsychNology Journal, 6(1), 61–82.
  23. Castro, L. A., & Gonzalez, V. M. (2009). Hometown websites: Continuous maintenance of cross-border connections. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies - C&T ’09 (pp. 145–154). https://doi.org/10.1145/1556460.1556482
  24. Crawley, H., & Skleparis, D. (2018). Refugees, migrants, neither, both: Categorical fetishism and the politics of bounding in Europe’s ‘migration crisis.’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1348224
  25. Cruz, G. T. (2014). For better or for worse? Migrant women workers and ICTs. In Feminist Cyberethics in Asia (pub.1017566055; pp. 95–116). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137395863_7
  26. Cuban, S. (2018). A stratified analysis of the ICT-based communicative practices and networks of migrant women. Migration and Development, 7(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/21632324.2016.1217614
  27. Dahya, N., & Dryden-Peterson, S. (2017). Tracing pathways to higher education for refugees: The role of virtual support networks and mobile phones for women in refugee camps. Comparative Education, 53(2), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2016.1259877
  28. Dekker, R., Engbersen, G., Klaver, J., & Vonk, H. (2018). Smart refugees: How Syrian asylum migrants use social media information in migration decision-making. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 2056305118764439. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118764439
  29. Dijstelbloem, H., & Meijer, A. (Eds.). (2011). Migration and the New Technological Borders of Europe. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299382
  30. Ergin, A. D. (2020). What happened at the Greece-Turkey border in early 2020?: A legal analysis. Verfassungsblog. https://doi.org/10.17176/20200930-220649-0
  31. Fiedler, A. (2019). The gap between here and there: Communication and information processes in the migration context of Syrian and Iraqi refugees on their way to Germany. International Communication Gazette, 81(4), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518775001
  32. Garcia, O. P. M. (2011). Gender digital divide: The role of mobile phones among Latina farm workers in Southeast Ohio. Gender, Technology and Development, 15(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/097185241101500103
  33. Gifford, S. M., & Wilding, R. (2013). Digital escapes? ICTs, settlement and belonging among Karen youth in Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 26(4), 558–575. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fet020
  34. Gillespie, M., Ampofo, L., Cheesman, M., Faith, B., Iliadou, E., Issa, A., Osseiran, S., & Skleparis, D. (2016). Mapping refugee media journeys: Smartphones and social media networks. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15633.22888
  35. Gillespie, M., Osseiran, S., & Cheesman, M. (2018). Syrian refugees and the digital passage to Europe: Smartphone infrastructures and affordances. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 2056305118764440. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118764440
  36. Goodman, S., Sirriyeh, A., & McMahon, S. (2017). The evolving (re)categorisations of refugees throughout the “refugee/migrant crisis.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(2), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2302
  37. Graf, H. (2018). Media practices and forced migration: Trust online and offline. Media and Communication, 6(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v6i2.1281
  38. Greene, A. (2020). Mobiles and ‘making do’: Exploring the affective, digital practices of refugee women waiting in Greece. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 23(5), 731–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419869346
  39. Hannaford, D. (2015). Technologies of the spouse: Intimate surveillance in Senegalese transnational marriages. Global Networks, 15(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12045
  40. Harney, N. (2013). Precarity, affect and problem solving with mobile phones by asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in Naples, Italy. Journal of Refugee Studies, 26(4), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fet017
  41. Heller, C., & Pezzani, L. (2012). Forensic Architecture Report on the “Left-to-die boat.” Forensic Architecture. https://content.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FO-report.pdf
  42. Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2020). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Second edition). Wiley-Blackwell.
  43. Horst, H. A. (2006). The blessings and burdens of communication: Cell phones in Jamaican transnational social fields. Global Networks, 6(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2006.00138.x
  44. Íñiguez-Rueda, L., Martínez, L. M., Muñoz-Justicia, J., Peñaranda-Cólera, M. C., & Vitores González, A. (2012). Telecenters as association stations: The role of information and communication technologies in migratory processes. Migraciones Internacionales, 6(4), 75–106.
  45. Jue, S. (2016). Her voice in the making: ICTs and the empowerment of migrant women in Pearl River Delta, China. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 22(4), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2016.1242947
  46. Karakülhancı, A. (2021, June 1). AB kurumu Frontex’in illegal yöntemleri [Illegal methods by Frontex of EU] [Text]. https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/ab-kurumu-frontexin-illegal-yontemleri-haber-1523931; Gazete Duvar. https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/ab-kurumu-frontexin-illegal-yontemleri-haber-1523931
  47. Kaufmann, K. (2018). Navigating a new life: Syrian refugees and their smartphones in Vienna. Information, Communication & Society, 21(6), 882–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1437205
  48. Koca, B. T. (2020). Bordering processes through the use of technology: The Turkish case. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1796272
  49. Latonero, M., & Kift, P. (2018). On digital passages and borders: Refugees and the new infrastructure for movement and control. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 2056305118764432. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118764432
  50. Leurs, K. (2014). The politics of transnational affective capital: Digital connectivity among young Somalis stranded in Ethiopia. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture, 5(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjmc.5.1.87_1
  51. Leurs, K., & Smets, K. (2018). Five questions for digital migration studies: Learning from digital connectivity and forced migration in(to) Europe. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 2056305118764425. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118764425
  52. Madianou, M. (2012). Migration and the accentuated ambivalence of motherhood: The role of ICTs in Filipino transnational families. Global Networks, 12(3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2012.00352.x
  53. Maitland, C., & Xu, Y. (2015). A social informatics analysis of refugee mobile phone use: A case study of Za’atari Syrian refugee camp (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2588300). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2588300
  54. Mancini, T., Sibilla, F., Argiropoulos, D., Rossi, M., & Everri, M. (2019). The opportunities and risks of mobile phones for refugees’ experience: A scoping review. PLOS ONE, 14, e0225684. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225684
  55. Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2020). Google scholar, microsoft academic, scopus, dimensions, web of science, and opencitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations.
  56. Nedelcu, M. (2012). Migrants’ new transnational habitus: Rethinking migration through a cosmopolitan lens in the digital age. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(9), 1339–1356. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2012.698203
  57. Nedelcu, M. (2017). Transnational grandparenting in the digital age: Mediated co-presence and childcare in the case of Romanian migrants in Switzerland and Canada. European Journal of Ageing, 14(4), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-017-0436-1
  58. Nedelcu, M., & Soysüren, I. (2020). Precarious migrants, migration regimes and digital technologies: The empowerment-control nexus. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1796263
  59. Nedelcu, M., & Wyss, M. (2016). “Doing family” through ICT-mediated ordinary co-presence: Transnational communication practices of Romanian migrants in Switzerland. Global Networks, 16(2), 202–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12110
  60. Noori, S. (2020). Navigating the Aegean Sea: Smartphones, transnational activism and viapolitical in(ter)ventions in contested maritime borderzones. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2020.1796265
  61. O’Mara, B. (2014). Aged care, cultural and linguistic diversity and IT in Australia: A critical perspective. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care, 10(2), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMHSC-05-2013-0006
  62. Panagakos, A. N., & Horst, H. A. (2006). Return to Cyberia: Technology and the social worlds of transnational migrants. Global Networks, 6(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2006.00136.x
  63. Pandey, S., & Ilavarasan, P. V. (2019). People, information and culture: Locating forms of capital by Afghan Sikh refugees in India through ICTs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.005
  64. Patil, A. (2019). The role of ICTs in refugee lives. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on information and communication technologies and development (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1145/3287098.3287144
  65. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2009). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing.
  66. Robertson, Z., Wilding, R., & Gifford, S. (2016). Mediating the family imaginary: Young people negotiating absence in transnational refugee families. Global Networks, 16(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12111
  67. Smets, K. (2018). The way Syrian refugees in Turkey use media: Understanding “connected refugees” through a non-media-centric and local approach. Communications, 43(1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2017-0041
  68. Sreenivasan, A., Bien-Aimé, S., & Connolly-Ahern, C. (2017). Connecting homeland and borders using mobile telephony: Exploring the state of Tamil refugees in Indian camps. Journal of Information Policy, 7, 86–110. https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.7.2017.0086
  69. Strickland, P. (2020, March 18). Violence and vigilantism on the Greece-Turkey border. Aljazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/3/18/a-journey-through-the-refugee-crisis-on-the-greece-turkey-border
  70. Turner, H., & Gülerce, H. (2021). Migrants and communication technologies in challenging times; A double-edged sword. In V. Bozkurt, G. Dawes, H. Gülerce, & P. Westenbroek (Eds.), The societal impacts of Covid-19: A transnational perspective (pp. 161–171). Istanbul University Press. https://doi.org/10.26650/B/SS49.2021.006.11
  71. Twigt, M. A. (2018). The mediation of hope: Digital technologies and affective affordances within Iraqi refugee households in Jordan. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 2056305118764426. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118764426
  72. Udwan, G., Leurs, K., & Alencar, A. (2020). Digital resilience tactics of Syrian refugees in the Netherlands: Social media for social support, health, and identity. Social Media and Society, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120915587
  73. UNHCR. (2021). UNHCR - Global trends 2019: Forced displacement in 2019. UNHCR Global Trends 2019. https://www.unhcr.org/globaltrends2019/
  74. Vancea, M., & Boso, Á. (2015). Migrant women and labour integration in Catalonia: The impact of new information and communication technologies. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 2015(53), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.7440/res53.2015.11
  75. Vancea, M., & Olivera, N. (2013). E-migrant women in Catalonia: Mobile phone use and maintenance of family relationships. Gender, Technology and Development, 17(2), 179–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852413488715
  76. Veronis, L., Tabler, Z., & Ahmed, R. (2018). Syrian refugee youth use social media: Building transcultural spaces and connections for resettlement in Ottawa, Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 50(2), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1353/ces.2018.0016
  77. Vukov, T., & Sheller, M. (2013). Border work: Surveillant assemblages, virtual fences, and tactical counter-media. Social Semiotics, 23(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2013.777592
  78. Wall, M., Campbell, M. O., & Janbek, D. (2017). Syrian refugees and information precarity. New Media & Society, 19(2), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815591967
  79. Wasilewski, K. (2020). The role of information and communication technology in the EU Response to the 2015 refugee crisis. Studia Migracyjne – Przegląd Polonijny, 2020 (XLVI)(Nr 2 (176)), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.4467/25444972smpp.20.012.12328
  80. Whittle, J., & Antonopoulos, G. A. (2020). How Eritreans plan, fund and manage irregular migration, and the extent of involvement of ‘organised crime.’ Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 22(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-020-00085-8
  81. Wilding, R. (2006). “Virtual” intimacies? Families communicating across transnational contexts. Global Networks, 6(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2006.00137.x
  82. Wilding, R. (2009). Refugee youth, social inclusion, and ICTs: Can good intentions go bad? Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 7, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/14779960910955873
  83. Witteborn, S. (2014a). Becoming (Im)perceptible: Forced migrants and virtual practice. Journal of Refugee Studies, 28(3), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feu036
  84. Witteborn, S. (2014b). Forced migrants, emotive practice and digital heterotopia. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture, 5(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjmc.5.1.73_1
  85. Witteborn, S. (2018). The digital force in forced migration: Imagined affordances and gendered practices. Popular Communication, 16(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2017.1412442
  86. Witteborn, S. (2021). Digital placemaking and the datafication of forced migrants. Convergence, 13548565211003876. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211003876
  87. Zijlstra, J., & van Liempt, I. (2017). Smart(phone) travelling: Understanding the use and impact of mobile technology on irregular migration journeys. International Journal of Migration and Border Studies, 3(2/3), 174. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMBS.2017.083245