PATTERNS EN CERCULAR MIGRATION: AN EXPLOEiATQRY STUDY OJ? [MEAL RETURN MiGRANTS AS A TYPE The“: for Hm Degree 05 M. A. WCHEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Wiiéiam Tregea LQfi-B THESIS 1A- _ .m-m : 2921'??? L 13 3a A R Y Michigan Sta. te University i . .-.-.._ 'mflr‘“. __'4.--. ..__ lllllllllllllHllHlllllHlllllIIHIHIHIIHIHHIHHIHIUHI 3 1293 10074 8767 'J "2",” ABSTRACT PATTERNS IN CIRCULAR MIGRATION: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF RURAL RETURN MIGRANTS AS A TYPE BY William Tregea There is lack of research on return migration in rural youth and a general need for further research on differential patterns in rural youth migration. This exploratory study attempts to analyze and categorize significant l) demographic indices, 2) career history, and 3) migration patterns found to be related to the "estimated career outcomes“ of rural return- migrant youth. A ten-year longitudinal study of 1957-58 graduates from high schools in Ontonagon County, Michigan is the sample. The data for the study was collected by means of a 20-page mailed questionnaire and involved several weeks follow-up fieldwork. That part of the sample used in this exploratory study included those youth who moved away from Ontonagon County for more than one month at any time and for any reason during the ten-year period, and since returned. we found three broad patterns of migration: ”The Forced and Reluctant,” ”The Target Training Local Aspirant" and “The Migrational Experimenter." Neither force, “target" training nor ”target" wages ( total N = 36 ) were considered true migration. we sub-typed the remaining 3h "Migrational Experimenters“ along a two-dimensional William Tregea continuum of “success“ as migration and ”success” as career outcome, with additional descriptive dimensions of family formation, level and type of education and initial reason for leaving. As we progressively differentiated within this ”truly” return migrant group ( ”The Experimenter's" ), it became increasingly clear that the stereotype of return migration as “failure“ in economic and career histories was inadequate for the typological task and, in fact, was misleading for fully 62% of this sample sub-type. we established three sub-types within the ”Migration Experimenter's" profile: "The Elite", ”The Local Aspirant” and "The Returning Failure“. Each sub-type evidenced clearly different and distinct meanings in their return migration pattern. The study underscored the importance of differentiating between various patterns of "two-way” migration, and the need for attention not only toward the location of experimental migration ( or ”destination” social system ), but also toward the community-of-origin as a social system, and particularly as an opportunity structure for many ”return migrants." Specifically, this study suggests that there were clear and persuasive incentives for a significant sub-group of return migrants to return: inheritance of the infra-structure of middle and upper-middle class occupations and/or income bearing property. On the other hand a small number, ( N = l3 ), of I'truly” unsuccessful return migrants were identified and were described in detail in terms of various demographic, migrational and career outcome dimensions, which description may contribute to the clarification of the underresearched and conceptually vague extant images of ”the return migrant." PATTERNS IN CIRCULAR MIGRATION: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF RURAL RETURN MIGRANTS AS A TYPE By 4nfl‘ William Tregea f: I A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology I968 Wu; /~.' hf / J ’..‘ .‘ - c” T PI; . .. . .- INTRODUCTION A substantial amount of research in American rural aaciology has been concerned with the problems of rural youth under the conditions of rapid change in the twentieth century. That there has been a more or less continual labor surplus in rural areas, and a resultant outflow of these young peOple into urban regions has been well established. Studies have also indicated that, historically, rural migrants to the city have generally done less well in terms of occupational achievement and income than their urban-reared counterparts. These rural migrants presumably enter the urban environment with poorer educational preparation, fewer skills and lower aspirations, and a less sophisticated grasp of the complexities of the urban/industrial/bureaucratic process than the urban-reared. The literature is not altogether consistent, and by no means complete, in its treatment of such aspects of the situation as the selectivity or the pattern of migration, the occupational experience and levels of achievement (social mobility) of rural migrants, and the sequence of events in the total process of their adjustment. For example, in differential migration, some studies have supported the hypothesis that it is the "superior" young peOple who leave their rural communities of orientation and migrate to the city, leaving behind the less talented rural youth. Other studies have found no important dif- ferences between rural migrants and nonmigrants. 2 The pattern of migration of rural youth has usually been treated as essentially-g one-way process; a phenomenon of rural youth leaving an area of marginal or depressed economic activity for the cities, where they are absorbed more or less permanently into the lower skilled and unskilled levels of the urban work force. Discussion of the Problem Area This ”one-way” notion of the migration and occupational adjust- ment process of rural youth has persisted even in spite of several studies reporting a reverse phenomenon in which some of these migrants, after a few years elsewhere, return to the same depressed rural areas from which they started out. why do d1ey return? what is the nature of this group and what is the meaning of dweir "two-way“ pattern of migration? what factors of career experience and/or attitude relate to these highly significant and strategic migration decisions? what are their ”career outcomes” and do d1ey constitute a stereotypically distinct group? The few studies which mention this return migration phenomenon do not provide us with any illuminating analysis of these rural ”migrants” as a specific group. Yet this phenomenon of "return migration” clearly presents some intriguing questions in the overall analysis of occupational adjustment, mobility, and "rural-urban” life cycles. Furthermore, circular migration appears to be frequent enough in certain settings to call for a much closer study than it has thus far received. Of the rural-depressed Michigan county young adults which are the longitudinal sample for this study (N = 265), anywhere from 13% to 26% fall in the RM category, depending on how circular migration is operationally defined (some definitions will be constructed and discussed in this paper). 3 The apparently oversimple descriptive stereotype of rural migra- tion as a "one-way“ process may well have to be set aside in favor of a more complex descriptive and conceptual model: It is becoming increas- ingly clear that migration of rural youth takes place in stages and that it is more complex than previously believed, characterized by physical and social vacillation in a ”back-and-forth” pattern. Careful longi- tudinal studies of circular migration can add importantly to the adequacy and completeness of our descriptive and analytic models of migration patterns in rural youth. Indeed, a severe limitation of much of the contemporary research literature on the experience and occupational adjustment and mobility processes of rural youth is that it has involved primarily static or historico-reconstructive analyses of rural-urban migrant cohorts. Studies involving successive measurements of a single cohort over time, providing ongoing longitudinal data, have not been widely performed. Thus, a longitudinal study offers possibilities for new insights into the adjustment and mobility processes, as well as the opportunity to measure certain long-range trends. Longitudinal studies provide important crit- ical checks against information gained largely from static and recon- structive studies, and they offer the Opportunity to expand the scope of our knowledge about the many elements of the economic, occupational, social, residential, and other demographic aspects of the adjustment of rural youth. The prime value of longitudinal studies lies in the effi>rt to understand more about the pattern of migration, and how it fits into the process of occupational adjustment. Where do rural young people first go when they leave home, and why? How much does the exclusively 4 ”economic” affect their decision to move or not move? What is the in- fluence and the role of family and friends in determining where and if an individual migrates? How often do these young people change employ- ment and how is this related to the level of the job and the amount of their education? Where does marriage place in the sequence of events for physically and socially mobile and nonmobile groups? How is the choice of marriage partner and timing of marriage, and timing and number of children related to the pattern of migration? 0r, conversely, how is choice of marriage partner, timing of marriage, and number of children affected by migration or nonmigration? Do rural nonmigrants-- those left behind--share enough common characteristics to evoke an impression of them as a type? Do the migrants share important traits or experiences sufficient to allow deduction and/or induction of a typical pattern? How are migration, nonmigration, circular migration, and the pattern of migration related to social mobility for rural young people? These are broad and comprehensive questions which are being treated in the Ontonagon Longitudinal Re-Study project described below. This thesis deals with aspects of these broad questions which are rele- vant to the experience of that segment of the total sample which have been classified as “return migrants.” METHODOLOGY The Re-Study Sample The current project, under the direction of J. Allan Beegle and Jon Rieger, is specifically designed as a longitudinal follow-up to a 1957 study of all high school juniors and seniors in Ontonagon County, a rural low income out-migration area in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The general purpose of this project has been PreCisely that of attempting to gather and analyze the detailed longitudinal data necessary to shed further light on the questions elaborated above. The original I957 sample included 269 persons. Since that time, three have died, leaving 266 persons. In the l968 Beegle/Rieger re-study, 265 of these have been located and questionnaires have been sent to them inquiring into their experience over the past ten years. It is expected that data will be obtained from approximately 90% of these persons. This Ontonagon cohort of 1957 juniors and senior high school students has, of course, dispersed widely throughout Michigan and fl1e midwest, and even as far as California and beyond. One person is in Aukland, New Zealand. The ”return migrants,” of course, are now right back where they started. The Return Migrant Sample What constitutes a “returned” migratory pattern? Answers, at this time, remain impressionistic. This return migrant pattern has received so little attention in past research, and in the literature, that a 5 6 typological construction has never been specifically developed.-. And the few scattered references in the literature on “the phenomenon" and comments from field researchers themselves evoke the impression of "going out to see what the world looks like” and then homing back, in a more or less straight-line to the point of departure. There is really very little else in the way of concrete and focused empirical data, defini- tions, typology, or analytic discussion available on this phenomenon. The returning migrant obviously went somewhere and came back. Our exploratory identification was simple: Any member of the original Ontonagon cohort who was living in Ontonagon County at the time of the fieldwork and who had, at any time, moved away from that county for one month 0: more, for whatever reason, since I957, was classed as a ”return migrant” (RM). Clearly this is a very open-ended definition, purposely constructed as an overlarge net. The qualification "for one month or more” was intended to select-out visits to relatives for holidays and other non-moving away travel experience. The RM sample are those who self-selected themselves by completing a section of the questionnaire prefaced by the instruction "If you are presently an Ontonagon County resident, but lived away from Ontonagon County for a.month or more any time since l352,,Answer the questions on pages l6-l9. All others should proceed to page 20." Inspection revealed that 66 out of llO subjects currently living in Ontonagon County completed the RM section. Inspection of the ten-year career history sections of the questionnaires of the 4A remaining Onton- agon County residents revealed 4 more RM cases. It is believed that the corrected sample size of 70 represents nearly l00% of the return migrant group, so defined. 7 The large net constructed by such an open-ended identification resulted, as expected, in a ”mixed lot” sample. Our sample, in short, constituted 70 re-study subjects who returned from living somewhere else, for a variety of reasons. The Questionnaires Two research projects are relevant to this study, the original Ontonagon County High School Study of “Initial Migration," by Beegle and Goldsmith, and the current First Decennial Re-Study project by Beegle and Rieger. The Initial Study of I957 In this study, a questionnaire was administered to all Onton- agon County High School juniors and seniors in the spring of I957. The senior researcher and Goldsmith were interested in the development of a model for explaining the initial stage of voluntary migration. The I957 researchers were also interested in the longer term possibilities of longitudinal follow-up data in the Northwestern Central Regional Area. Ontonagon County, therefore, was chosen as an appropriate out-migration county for the project needs. Goldsmith was particularly interested in voluntary migration and in the problem of establishing a predictive model utilizing factors existing in “the initial stage of migration." This study is not directly concerned with Goldsmith's thesis, and aside from utilizing the same cohort ten years later as the source of this sample of "return migrants,’l we will not return to Goldsmith's work until the concluding discussion. The First Decennial Re-Study 1362-68 The First Decennial Re-Study of this original I957 sample is seeking longitudinal data on permanent migrants, return migrants, and non-migrants, and will lead to a re-assessment of Goldsmith's thesis. 8 There is major emphasis on the pattern of migration (e.g., "two-way“ processes of migration) and on differential career outcomes of rural youth. This RM study involves the earliest complete sub-sample of re- turned questionnaires. The Decennial Re-Study is currently in the latter stages of data recovery. This thesis is exploratory in that it constitutes a partial l"pilot study” suggesting dimensions that may be relevant to the larger project. The fact of this thesis having been constructed before the comple- tion of data recovery and analysis in the larger project is important because the exploratory study of |'return migration'I might be signifi- cantly enhanced through a comparative analysis of the three suggested typologies of migration: the non-migrant, the “return" migrant, and the permanent migrant. Such comparisons could aid greatly in any attempted typification and in the attempt to clarify the processural ”two-way" aspects of rural youth migration. With complete data being as yet un- available, the scope and direction of the following exploration must rely solely on the sub-sample of returned migrants. The exploratory nature of the study has resulted in certain data being gathered that were less fruitful than they at first promised to be. In particular, the RM section of the Decennial Re-Study Question- naire dealing with reasons for returning proved less interesting and less important than other sections. Specific discussion of the ”Reasons for Returning” will be presented in Appendix D. Principal attention will be paid to certain demographic variables and to the construction of a typology of “return“ migrants in terms of 1) their initial reason for migration, 2) their longitudinal patterns of migration, and 3) their career outcomes. SCOPE OF THE THESIS Patterns in Circular Migration: Anfgxploratory Studonf Rural Return Migrants as a Type As the title is meant to indicate, the sc0pe of this study is set initially by its necessarily exploratory nature, and by the limitations of the sub-sample size. Who Are the Return Migrants And What Happens to Them? These two questions are related in a conceptual and definitional sense for Hwho they are” depends on ”what happened to them,“ in terms of migration patterns, career histories, attitudinal, and other dimensions. Three approaches, each progressively narrowing and conceptually clarifying the various 3123p of "return migration” are presented: I) Demographic profiles based on Family Formation, Level and Type of Education anI/or Vocational Training related to "Initial Reason for Leaving” the community-of-origin; 2) Profiles of the Migrational Patterns as related to Orientations to Community, and 3) a Typology of Estimated Career Outcomes. The latter is an attempt to assess the mobility like- lihoods of the "return migrants.” These three approaches are, of necessity, interrelated and complexly interwoven along many dimensions. The patterned interrelationships among Migration, Career Outcomes, and Demographic Factors leads towards a synthesis in the effort to create a researchable typology of "The Return Migrant.” ID The Results: A Typology of Return Migrants A typology capable of further research in the problem area of the ”return migrant” is presented, with additional discussion relating the results of the exploratory study to the questions reviewed in the Introduction. Summacy and Conclusions for Further Research The problems of such an exploratory study, and several suggestions directed toward future research forms the summary and con- clusion of this thesis. The Appendices There are 5 appendices providing additional relevant mater- ials. Appendix A provides extended elaboration of the Demographic Factors; Appendix B provides extended elaboration of the Migration Patterns; and Appendix C provides extended elaboration of the Career Outcomes. Appendix D provides summary data on the Questionnaire RM Section ("The Reasons for Returning”), pre-fieldwork reasoning, and a general discussion of the relationships of these and other attitudinal items with the typology. (Appendix E is the First Decennial Re-Study Questionnaire. Appendices A through D provide additional discussion of logical procedures, assumptions, methodological questions, and further details on the thesis typologies. This thesis must necessarily proceed along complex and multi-dimensional lines in dealing with a complex and largely unstudied phenomenon, and these further discussions, filling out many logical and descriptive aspects, should prove helpful and relevant. THE PATTERNS AND MEANING OF RETURN MIGRATION: RESULTS OF AN EXPLORATORY STUDY Who They Are and What Happens To Them we begin with an overall picture of ”the ones who returned” to their point of origin. As indicated, our image is one of an apparently inex- plicable pattern of returning home to what is, in fact, a rural depressed county, which carries with it the implication of economic and occupational failure.* It is this “unsuccessful migrant” syndrome which this study seeks to explore. The initial sorting of the RM sample (N = 70) by ”Initial Reason for Leaving“ produced four more or less distinct categories: I) seeking education and/or vocational training (l9 cases), 2) seeking employment and/or living with friends or relatives (20 cases), 3) being drafted or enlisting into military service (l7 cases), and 4) following and/or accompanying spouse (l4 cases). This ”Initial Reason for Leaving'I typology suggested certain even more basic elements: I) leaving for a variety of more or less invol- untary or compulsory reasons, e.g., military, to be with spouse, and coming directly back at the termination of such forcing or compulsary conditions 2) Leaving to obtain further education or vocational training, and coming directly back at the termination of such program; and 3) leaving *This typification is found in this study to be highly over- simplified and, in fact, often misleading. ll l2 to seek work and/or live with friends or relatives- after graduation and subsequently returning. What assumptions can be made about possible meanings of these three migration patterns for the careers of the subjects involved? It might be assumed that there is an increasing image of the "unsuccessful migrant'I as we move from the more “involuntary'l migrants toward the more voluntary migrants. This typology of ”Reasons for Leaving“ formed our initial approach to analysis of the RM sample. Thus, three demographic dimensions were chosen to provide a basic picture of the status of the return migrants: I) Family Formation, 2) Initial Reason for Leaving, and 3) Level and Type of Further Education or Vocational Training. What Happened to Them: Some Demographic Profiles Family Formation profiles were constructed on the basis of five specific variables: a) number of siblings, b) number of pregnancies before marriage, c) date of first child, d) number of children, and e) divorce. On the basis of date of marriage and date of first child, compared with national averages, three Family Formation categories were constructed: "Early,“ ”Average," and “Late.” Aside from some inconsistencies (see Appendix A), the trends presented in the following tables are clear: Early marriage for both men and women tends to mean a great manycchildren and, given the fre- quency of pregnancies before marriage, a high probability of limited or * . . . . . . It IS Important to keep In mind that thlS notion of compulsary migration refers to the leaving and not the returning, although in all cases these persons did come back after some time elsewhere, and after at least some amount of exposure to other environments and life-styles (see Appendix A). l3 ”forced” mate-selectivity exists. Clearly, these conditions Should be expected to have significant influence on opportunities for "successful” migration. Again, the average number of months before or after gradua- tion that marriage occurred is as low as the rate of pregnancy is high: l.7 monthsf On closer inspection, we would expect to find that Egrlnyamily Formation and low number of Months before or after Gradua- Ipipp at Marriage would both tend to confirm the notion of an ”unsuccess- ful'l migrant syndrome. TABLE I. FAMILY FORMATION; WOMEN Mos. Aver. Months Preg. Number of lst Child Av. Mar. Prior N = 28* Siblings .i Grad. .3 Grad. Marriage Children Div.% EARLY (N=lh) A.4 9.0 1.7 64% 3.6 29% AVERAGE (N=5) 3.2 16.0 26.0 0% 2.8 0% LATE (N=6) 4.0 36.0 3l.0 I7% 2.0 0% TABLE 2. FAMILY FORMATION; MEN Mos. Aver. Months Preg. N - 42* Number of lst Child Av. Mar. Prior Siblings .1 Grad. .1 Grad. Marriage Children Div.% EARLY (N=l0) 3.3 50.0 41.0 70% 3.1 0% AVERAGE (N-IO) 3.6 75.0 61.0 20% 2.6 0% LATE (N=6) l.8 82.0 69.0 67% I.0 0% *Table I: There were 3 cases (now shown) in which there were no children. Table 2: There were l6 cases (not shown) of which 3 in- cluded no children and I3 were single men. +This is for women only. it. The second set of profiles (Tables 3 and 4) displays summary data comparing “initial reason for leaving,‘I level and type of any further education received over the last ten years, and the pattern of family formation. Table 3. THE INITIAL REASONS FOR LEAVING, LEVEL AND TYPE OF EDUCATION, AND FAMILY FORMATION TABLES WOMEN INITIAL REASONS FOR LEAVING %Jype ,%Family Form N Level Aca. Voc. Ear. Aver.-La. La. Single HUSBAND l4 0.0 .00 .04 .80 .20 .07 .00 EDUCATION 7 2.l .I4 .86 .00 .7I .30 .00 JOB AND/OR 7 0.0 .00 .00 .43 .43 .43 .00 RELATIVES Table 4. THE INITIAL REASONS FOR LEAVING, LEVEL AND TYPE OF EDUCATION, AND FAMILY FORMATION TABLES DELI INITIAL REASONS FOR LEAVING %Jype 4%Family Form N Level Aca. Voc. Ear. Aver.-La. La. Single MILITARY I7 .75 .08 .62 .18 .4I .l8 .24 EDUCATION l2 2.00 .58 .33 .08 .32 .I6 .50 JOB AND/OR I3 .30 .00 .23 .38 .38 .07 .23 RELATIVES It was expected that, in general, whatever additional education or vocational training the RM group obtained would be directly related to the "initial reason for leaving” the country. Table 4 reveals this to 15 be an extremely strong pattern for women (this should be expected, given the strong traditional definitions of sex-roles in rural areas). The military serves as an important source of vocational training for the men in this sample group, a fact verified by examination of questionnaire responses dealing with military service experience. To appreciate the significance of the statistic on getting further academic education, we must examine what it actually represents and where such education was completed. The average level-of-education achieved includes, on the one hand, several who went for six months or a year an! failed or dropped out and, on the other, a few who did, in fact, grad- uate with a bachelor's degree. (All of the latter are now teaching in Ontonagon county schools.) Furthermore, all but two of the entire group (men and women) received their ”academic” education in public or private community colleges, junior colleges, or branch state universities in the Upper Peninsula. These institutions might be fl1ought to offer much more gemeinschaft atmospheres and to draw more homogeneously community- of-origin oriented student bodies than the big universities in the Lower Peninsula. An overall proportion of roughly one-fourth of the RM group leaving initially for educational reasons may seem a comparatively high propor- tion for rural, depressed areas, but a close examination of the level and type of education obtained somewhat modifies the picture. Only 4 out of 19 who left for educational reasons secured a bachelor's degree; thus, only 5.7% of the entire RM sample (N I 70) have become college graduates. Most of these initial migrations were, in fact, for vocational rather than academic training (of the remaining IS, the average vocational l6 achievement is 1-4 while the average academic achievement is 2.3 years). Finally, most of this vocational education appears to have consisted in out-dated or rapidly obsolescing types of mechanical, electrical,or sec- retarial training. Because the questionnaire was not designed to seek highly specific descriptions of the content and meanings of the various vocational training programs, more specific analysis than that provided here is not possible. It is clear that educational or vocational achievement among women not originally leaving for that purpose is extremely low. Recal- ling that none of the women are now single, and that approximately 70% were married and had had at least one child by the age of 2l, it appears that women's sex roles among this return-migrant cohort are highly traditional. Summarization of these demographic factors allows us to develop someccontrasting profiles: Those who initially left for ”involuntagy“ reasons--3l cases; l4 women and I7 men, where ll women evidence Early Family Formation (with all its attendent vital statistics) and none have received signifi- cant further education or training and where 23 men have received some kind of vocational, job-oriented training (obsolescent); Those who left for jobs--20 cases; 7 women and I3 men, where 3 women evidence Early and 3 women evidence Late Family Formation and none have 3111 further training or education, and where 5 men evidence Early Family Formation while 33 are single and none have any further academic education with j3 having further vocational training (obsolescent); 17 Those who left for education-- l9 cases; 7 women and l2 men, where.pg women evidence early Family Formation with-pg early pregnancy and where one woman received academic while 230:: women received voca- tional (some semi-professional), and where (nu: man married Early while six are still single, withsix men receiving academic and five receiv- ing vocational ( Li BA'S). From this evidence, the I'initial reason for leaving” the community- of-origin is clearly pivotal in the family and career histories of rural youth. For some, perhaps, it has powerful and even traumatic strategic impact on later life chances and life styles. By studying return migra- tion, we are at the crucial intersection of the human meanings and con- sequences of these various demographic factors. What Happened to Them: Some Migration Pattern Profiles We have presented above a demographic picture of the return migrant constructed solely on the basis of their ”initial reasons” for migrating. Yet, limited as that picture remains, these Demographic Profiles indicate the need for a more analytic and longitudinal approach. That is, we must answer the question, “What else happened to them over the last ten years?” Specifically, what kinds of long-term migration do members of this sample evidence? Furthermore, ”What kinds of developing career outcomes are part of the return migrant story?“ The Decennial Re-Study questionnaire was specifically designed to recover migrational and a variety of longitudinal career information, and intensive analysis of that data revealed several distinct migration patterns. In the attempt to provide a more analytic conceptualization, the following “Migration History Profiles” are presented: “The Forced l8 and Reluctant,” ”The Community-of-Origin Occupational Aspirant,” and "The Migration Experimenters.”* Each of thase profiles attempts to describe and explain a more-or-less distinct pattern of return migra- tion represented in the RM sample. While these profiles remain tenta- tive and exploratory, we believe they provide a possible starting point in the study of return migrant phenomenon. Migration Profile #I: "The Forced and Reluctant” These are rural people for whom only force or forcing situatiohal contexts can initiate physical migration out of the county or community- of origin. The theoretical assumption is that they have a very strong community-of-origin orientation and that their community-of-orientation ‘12121 of aspiration (occupational, status, etc.) is not so strong or of the nature that migration from the community would be necessary for such aspiration-fulfillment. ”Force” refers specifically to the military draft. ”Forcing situational contexts” refers to the following structural situations: I) declining job market combined with large and growing families forcing many with limited skills to temporarily migrate to ”substitute communities“ for the specific puppose of I'target wages” for a short and well-specified time period with the (attitudinal factor of) response patterns indicating no intention of ”experimentipg” with new (i.e., “substitute”) wage rewarding area or community, and/or 2) a community-of-origin occupational structure and subject job domain containing highly unstable and/or strike-shutdown-layoff industries as the major source of employment creating a forcing situational context 'k A fourth profile is discussed in Appendix B: ”The Rural Unsettled and Drifting.” l9 of temporary migration to substitute or known ccmmunities for the spec- ific purpose of l'substitute wages," for a short and well-specified time period (until the strlke, shutdown, or layoff period is over), with a consistent pattern in either case of immediate return to the community- of-origin and its job-domain opportunity structure. Migration Profile #2: “The Community-Of-Origjn Occupational Aspirant” These are rural people who “migrate” temporarily with the distinct pattern of securing some form of community-of-origin oriented and related or needed ”Target Training origgucation,” either vocational, technical, semi-professional or professional. The theoretical assumption is that they have a strong community-of-orientation, but not so strong or of the level and type of community-of-origin aspiration (occupation/status) that cannot be fulfilled without temporarily migrating for the specific purpose of such ”target" training. “Target Training“ is defined as acquisition of skill and/or education directly related to the opportunity structure and job-domains of the community-of-origin, and with a migra- tion pattern of direct and immediate return to the community-of-origin, with frequent subsequent entry into a job of job domain for which such target training is directly relevant. Miqration Profile #3: ”The Migration Experimenters” These are rural people who try migrating, in the full and clear meaning of ”settling“ in another community (in a more-or-less permanent sense) for an extended period of time and/or people who try migrating and move to several different community areas, with an explicit objective pattern (and a corresponding attitudinal pattern) of ”experimenting" with living and working in other, strictly non-community-of-origin areas or 20 communities. This does not necessarily rule out living what otherwise would be called "substitute communities" (i.e., where there are friends or relatives from community-of-origin).giygp a clear job, career, migra- tion and/or attitudinal pattern evidence of ”experimental performance” and |'experimental intentions" in such migration patterns. There is also a strong (but not necessary) effort of ”career outcome" career/ occupational domain "experimentaliafl' in this group. The theoretical assumption is that, while there may be a reason- ably strong community-of-origin orientation, such orientation is not so strong that these people do not at least_ppy experimental migration with more-or-less serious consideration to (at least extended) living away from the community-of-origin, especially if experimentalism is "success- ful” (to be defined).* The premise, then, is that such people have a Level of Aspiration which includes an orientation toward non-community- of-origin references, in terms of life-style, life-chance, occupational domain, regional opportunities/climates, family security, mobility, or just plain “give it a try" American cultural more of ”going out and see the world as a young person” intention/consideration. These three profiles expandeand significantly extend our initial typology. They are based not on.fip§£ incidences of migration, but rather on the entire ten-year migration pattern . For many sample members, there is complete consistency--the reason for their first migration episode was similar to any and all subsequent such episodes *As we shall see in later discussion, in many cases, Profile #3 migration patterns may not be so much a question of ”weak“ community-of- origin orientation as much as other conflicting values in the context of certain ”forcing situational contexts.” That is, in declining job markets, some people must leave if they wish to secure wages and/or occupational opportunity structure providing security for a growing family with low-skilled husband (see following discussion). 2l in which they left the county and then returned. For some, however, there is a changing pattern of reasons for migrating and returning. Nevertheless, our initial typological consideration would still appear relevant. Directly ”forced” migration, in the sense that an hdividual has no reasonable alternative, as is exemplified in the military draft, is really inconsistent with the concept of ”voluntary migration.” On the other hand, voluntary migration, in the context of "forcing'I structural situations, creates a more ambiguous typological problem, and requires some further discussion. we have included both IIdirect force“ (e.g., the military draft) _§pg ”forcing situational contexts” (e.g., migration in pursuit of employ- ment) as illustrative of migration profile #I. The reasoning here is that a job squeeze and the resultant labor surplus created by techno- logical modernization of the few industries in Ontonagon county results in a IIforcing situational context” for the "voluntary'I decision to, at least temporarily, migrate. A question could be raised as to how this l'temporary" profile #I can be distinguished from, for example, an I'unsuccessful" profile #3 migrational "experimenter? where the individual exhibits a similar pattern of moving to another social system and then returning? It is a question that has not been completely resolved in this exploratory study.* However, intensive analysis of the migration and career histories of subject prototypes did provide a successful typological differentiation based on I) length of stay away from Onton- agon County, 2) the relationship between time of local strikes/shutdowns/ layoffs in the county (which, it is expected, encourages migration to temporary ”substitute communities“) and/or timing and number of children * See Appendix B for further discussion. 22 considered in conjunction with the pattern of wage-earning (which, it is suggested,.leads to "target wage" temporary migration to augment normal wage-earning potential), 3) the timing and directness of the return (i.e., returning immediately upon settlement of the strike and/or upon achievement of “target wage" objectives) and, 4) attitudinal constella- tions tending to confirm the impression of these patten1s. On the basis of these distinct differentiations and certain additional methodological measures,* profile #I was distinguished from other patterns, and this operationalization was accepted for classifying sample members. Thus, we may provisionally retain the orienting logic in profile #I of only "force” or “forcing situational” contexts as capable of initiating migration. This leads us to some similar logical and descriptive prob- lems with profile #2. Clearly, we are not dealing with “no other reason- able alternative“ with regard to decisions to seek further education or \ocational training. Again, the major question is how do we distinguish between this “temporary” profile #2 pattern from certain "unsuccessful'I profile #3 migrational ”experimenters” (where the sample member may evidence a similar pattern of moving with evidence of further education or vocational training in another social system, and then return)? This question has not been completely resolved in this exploratory study.* However, intensive analysis of the migration and career histories of this prototype also provided a successful typological differentiation on the basis of l) the length of the l'stay away," 2) the correlation between time-Span of educational and/or vocational programs involved and the length of “stay away," 3) the timing and directness of the ‘1: See Appendix B for further discussion. 23 return (i.e., returning immediately upon either completion or other termination of the “target training“), 4) confirming career history evidence of immediate and/or potential utilization of such training 1p Ontonagon and/or specific and directly community-of-origin-related types of education or training, with 5) confirming attitudinal constellations tending to confirm the impression of patterns. On the basis of these distinct differentiations, and certain additional methodological measures, profile #2 was distinguished from other migration patterns and this operationalization was accepted for classifying sample members. Thus, while profile #2 involves voluntary migration, certain attitudinal ”sets” were inferred on the basis of the above patter - differences, to dkstinguish them from the “experimenters.” They (appar- ently) left only and solely for IItarget training“ with the (apparently) specific intention and career-plan of returning to the county-of-origin, whether such ”target training“ was completed or otherwise terminated.Ju Again, we may provisionally retain the orienting logic in profile #2 as strongly community-of-origin oriented, but with a level of aspiration and/or job-domain requiring such temporary migration. Each of these Profiles contains enough cases with enough relevant sub-patterns to merit some effort at sub-typing, but obviously, it is pattern #3 which should prove most relevant to our exploratory concern 3% See Appendix B. **Throughout this complex and interwoven typological attempt, the patterns of migration, the demographic facts, the pattern of career history, and objective “estimation indicators” of l'career outcomeII were utilized for the task of establishing the several typologies. Attitud- inal factors were used only as confirming inferred I“variables." Never- theless, the attitudinal confirmations were strong in all typological approaches. Further discussion of the methodology and questions involved "non-attitudinal" approaches to migrational pattern typification is found in the following section and also in Appendices B and C. 24 k with the ”unsuccessful“ syndrome of return migration (Profile #3 is also the largest migration pattern (N = 34) as well as the most broadly defined). ”Success”: As Demographic, Migration, and Career Outcome Patterns In our discussion of the demographic description of our RM sample, we created an implicit definition of “success” in terms of educational or vocational preparation, ”initial reason for leaving,” and the nature of family formation. we expected that certain demographic constella- tions would relate in certain ways with the "unsuccessful” migrant syn- drome (thus implicitly suggesting a "successful” combination of such denographic factors as well). Again, in our discussion of migration profile patterns, we have been implicitly defining “success” in terms of migration (i.e., ”did he mig- rate out of such a rural-depressed county?”). It would seem relevant, in the discussion of “migration as success,“ to construct some kind of continuum of Rural/Urban place and/or pattern of ”experimental" migra- tion (it seems reasonable that a “migrational experimenterll who leaves the community-of-origin to live in another highly similar rural area has not'éucceededY [rflefining success as migration;7 as well or in the same sense as another sample member who ”tried” migrating and living in a large Urban complex. we discuss this dimension further in Appendix B). On the other hand, people not only mpyg, they £955. Careers, of course, have outcomes within the contexts of oppor- tunity structures. Opportunity structures, in turn, require certain objective attributes such as level of skill, training, bodies of * Further discussion of profiles #I and #2 is found in Appendix B. 25 knowledge, competencies in personal and interpersonal situations, bureaucratic adeptness. That is, opportunity structures require some such set of attributes in order to achieve, secure, and/or maintain ”success” (now defined as “reward” in terms of either security or mobility). This suggests a conceptual approach defining ”success” in terms of career outcome. Such an approach suggests, in turn, that the task of describing, assessing, and adequately differentiating a return migrant sample into viable profile #3 sub-types must involve at least four dimensions: l) the career-outcome opportunity structure where they “experimented,” 2) their objective background to ”succeed'l in such an opportunity structure, and at what likely levels of success so defined, 3) the opportunity structure in the community-of-origin (Ontonagon County in this case), and 4) the sample members' objective background to succeed, so defined, in that opportunity structure. This reasoning (in addition to other considerations elaborated in Appendix B), leads us to the construction of two broad classifications within the "experimental'I migration pattern: I) “unsuccessful“ in other locations and, 2) “more or less successful“ in other locations.* The Unsuccessful Return Migrant The unsuccessful RM sample member was identified in terms of a pattern of inability to ”adjust“/“adapt” and “do well” in respect *It would be possible and fruitful (with a larger sample N) to construct a fairly rigorous multi-dimensional "variable” approach to I'success” and “non-success'I in terms of demographic, migrational, career-history patterns and career-outcome estimators, all taken in syn- thesis, in a theoretically ”tight" constructed typology of return migra- tion. As an exploratory study, however, we shall stick to one dimension at a time until our progressive narrowing and "crossfirings" allow us some tentative foundation for a more complex perspective. 26 solely to job skills, wage security, and/or sequencing and pattern of career and migration episodes. Seven men and six women (none couples) were so identified, or about I8% of the RM sample.* (Four of these l3 cases are described in detail in Appendix B as prototypical of the analytic profile of "unsuccessful.”) The Successful Return Migrant The successful RM sample member was identified, on the other hand, in terms of a pattern of stability, evidence of “adjustment“ or "adaption,” in respect particularly to job skills, wage security, and/or sequencing and pattern of migration and career history episode(s). Thirteen men and eight women (three couples) were so identified, or about 30% of the RM sample. The criterion here was: Wbuld an urban- based researcher be uncertain or tend to class these cases into "success- fully” migrating from rural areas categories? Nearly all, it was be- lieved, would have been so classified at any “slice” of their ”stay away." Yet, they have returned. In many ways, this sub-type is even more interesting than the "unsuccessful." It is larger, nearly 30% of the RM sample, which is l2-l3% of the entire (N a 265) Re-Study cohort. * While each case is very different in many respects, each displays similarities threading the theme of “unsuccessful” migration (and/or career outcome) throughout the mass of idiosyncratic detail. There is one case of lack of skills and growing family, with inability to draw sufficient wage to support/security; a second case of several un- successful (in terms of length of stay or raising wages) moves to large urban areas and then a return to very low level woods common labor, con- sistent over ten years with no change in sight; a third case of a large and growing family where fl1e husband was unable to earn more in the large city where he migrated than he could back in county-of-origin; and a fourth case of ”unsuccessful” migration via "wrong marriage” and divorce, with much more successful second (local) spouse providing twice the level of living/security/mobility potential in local job domain. 27 (Four of these 2l cases are described in detail in Appendix B as proto- typical of the analytic profile “successful.")* Close inspection of the prototype cases directs attention toward the county-of-origin, and particularly its opportunity structure and jpp class/status security or mobility potential for these "returning“ cases. As mentioned, careers have outcomes in the context of opportunity structures. we can discuss “success” defined as a certain migration pattern (i.e., did the sample member ”make it out” of county-of-origin and more-or-less successfully adapt and adjust in the urban milieu?); we can also discuss IIsuccess“ in terms of opportunity structures and career outcomes. Did the subject “do well”? As we are beginning to see, the interrelationship between initial reason for leaving, education, family formation, migration patterns, and career outcome dimensions for the RM group is complex. The final presentation of fi1is exploratory study will pay specific attention to the opportunity structure of Ontonagon county, and will provide an estimated career outcome typology of the return migrants in terms of Egg; opportunity structure. It may well be that a good deal of the RM phenomenon is inexplicable_gply if the opportunity structure of the community-of-ofigin is ignored. * While each case is distinct, each also displays similarities threading the theme of “successful” migration ( and/or career outcome ) throughout the mass of detail. There is one case of a man who obtained a teaching B.A. and started a construction business as supplement to teaching, then returned to Ontonagon for full time business, another man earned no degree but spent several years in a large Wisconsin city establishing a construction business, then returned to take managership of large (parental) garage, there was a woman who went to a large city and obtained the R.N. and then worked a year in that city at a large hospital, returned to marry executive husband, another women whose husband began vending business in large urban area and was successful for several years, they returned to buy Ontonagon motel. I.II 28 The County-of-Origin Ontonagon County has a population_ncm3a: c0304 coNoLu .vcmcmOQ Loocmu 11 1. 11, voumE_umm Em__mucoemcoQXm mc.c_mch _mco.um8 mo_u_c:EEou o>wz< .mco_umcm_z Loucmu L0\ucm co_umu:om> 0mm: mama: .>u.>uw”3 new co_umo04 Lozuo Locucau Lo uomemh ou:u_umn=m uomcmh co.mwmou H W_V I z I A :mu ucmL_am< .mooa A _N 2 V u_.m0cm mcoucoe_coaxN zco_umcm_z . c_m_couw01>u_caesou ficmuua_ox can noULOm co.umcm_z och um % 0__moLm och "N % o__moLm 0;» u. % o__w0cm . . ”*1! ‘ I P 36 ”Upwardly.” To explain this, we introduce the index on ”middle-class/ status income bearing parental property” (Table 5, far right). Fully 82% of the RM Middle Class sample have parents with such middle-class income bearing property and/or business investments. Hence, the Middle- Class RM sample members have very little 292g to l'delay” family forma- tion or to achieve comparatively high educational levels-if they can reasonably expect middle-class life chances and a middle-class life-style by simply entering parental businesses. We are suggesting, then, that there are very real incentives for such parental-propertied Middle-Class RM sample members to “return.” Even rural depressed counties support a small structure of Middle-Class statuses. But then, this might not seem terribly surprising. It is not surprising, either, that the highest incidence of “successful” migration patterns is evidenced by this Middle-Class group (73% evi- denced ”successful” migration interludes). These results are ”surprising” only if return migration continues to be conceptualized as I'unsuccessful” migration. These joint tables offer the possibility of further analysis for they reveal many interesting comparisons. However, we wish to proceed with our exploratory effort by further treatment of the pattern and con- cept of ”unsuccessful” return migration. Consequently, with these joint tables as additional foundation, we will come back to the problem of migration profile #3, "The Experimenters.” we want to create a more descriptive sub-typing than merely ”successful“ or ”unsuccessful,“ and therefore, the following sub-type descriptions are presented: ”The Com- munity-of-Origin Elite,” 2) "Large Fish in Small Ponds,” and 3) “The Returning Failures.” 37 ”The Communityéof-Origin Elite” In the colloquial, these are the ”county lights.” They have had very successful urban experiences; some were even more successful in income/status than they might ever be even as “the elite” in Ontonagon. There are three undertones of ”returning'I for this group, impression- istic but perhaps descriptive: a) IOyalty--some come back even if they could do even better elsewhere, from a sense of loyalty to the community, involving a strong identification with its past, present, and future; b) serious business--others come back in order to enter and prosper with expanding businesses (all parental property); and c) ggpy lijgf-others return to enjoy a middle-class parental business life and life-style, allowing them security and money for trips, with many opportunities for recreational pleasure within the county itself. This is the Middle- and Upper-Middle Class Status group which does rot need to delay marriage, children, or further education (generally) in order to live a middle-class life in Ontonagon, although many go to colleges as a matter of expectation. ”Large Fish in Small Ponds": The Local Aspirant In the local colloquial, these are the ”good people who came back.” They have had moderate success in ”experimental migration," although most of them experimented in similarly rural areas. Theirs' is an image of ”wending one's way back, slowly but inevitably, toward the community-of-origin.‘I They mostly would remain lower-middle to middle- middle class in an urban context, but nearly all are now "the supporting elite” orchave such potential in Ontonagon. They are the school teachers winding back from a teachers' college by way of several small cities or towns. There is one case where an attempt at a small business was only 38 moderately successful and after selling out, a return to Ontonagon to teach and coachcthe star basketball team--and many similar prototypes. This group has almost guaranteed assurance of being at least near the “top” if they returned. They have credentials for teaching or have operated small busfinesses and/or have accumulated other highly needed skills rekted to the county-of-origin. They are the Upwardly Mobile and Middle-class status sample members who have delayed marriage, kept children down, avoided pregnancy before marriage, attained significant further