Temporal logics in geographical research on migration and refugees

Abstract

This paper identifies and examines three key approaches prevalent in the geographical study of migration: the displacement and mobilities approach, the transit and waiting approach, and the immigrant settlement approach. Each approach is analyzed in terms of its treatment of time and migratory experiences, critiquing them for reinforcing conventional temporal categories: the past, present, and future. It argues that these categories are problematic as they oversimplify the complex spatiotemporal nature of migration. The paper proposes the concept of “temporal logics” to problematize and de-reify these categories, enabling a more nuanced analysis of time in migration, mobility, and displacement processes.

Keywords

migration refugees time temporality temporal logics geography

I Introduction

When humans move around in space, they interpret their experiences through the lens of time—but concepts of time vary among societies in different places. These differences become particularly important when people from different backgrounds come together through migration, mobility, and displacement. A growing number of important studies in human geography now firmly regard time and temporality as fundamental elements in understanding the geography of migration¹ and refugee dynamics (Axelsson, 2022; Robertson, 2014; Tefera, 2021). Given that migration is inherently bound to temporal processes, any attempt to fully understand migrants’ mobility experiences without considering temporal dimensions remains incomplete. This is because migration is not just about moving from one place to another; it is also about shifts in circumstances, experiences, and relationships that unfold and evolve. The act of migration itself is temporal, where individuals and communities navigate different phases, adapt to new environments, and experience changes in their lives as they move and settle. Time is also a key element in determining rootedness and belonging to a place. As Ho (2021) noted, time and temporality both shape and mirror the spatial manifestation of power and the results of intersecting identities, thereby structuring and defining the nature of social life.

This paper reviews recent progress in the expanding human geography literature on time and temporalities within the context of migration and refugee displacement and presents an original conceptual framework for understanding this dimension of human geographical research, which we refer to as “temporal logics.” Initially, Tefera and Gamlen (2023: 246) briefly introduced the concept of temporal logics, defined as “distinctive regimes that order and regulate the lived experience of time,” without delving into its detailed implications. In this paper, we expand on this empirical work to offer a more comprehensive theorization of temporal logics and their significance to broader geographical research on migration.

The need to employ temporal logics arises from the intricate ways migrants’ experiences intertwine with temporal factors, such as duration of displacement, timing of events, frequency of movement, periods of waiting, seasonal cycles, and the pace of life changes (Taylor, 2014). Temporal logics allow for a detailed examination of how these elements influence migrants’ journeys and settlement as they navigate and adapt to various challenges, including legal restrictions, detention periods, and bureaucratic delays. Migrants also must reconcile their individual temporal experiences with dominant cultural and social temporalities at various stages of their mobilities and immobilities (Steincek, 2019), re-classifying life phases and rhythms that traditional frameworks often overlook (Clayton and Vickers, 2019). In other words, using temporal logics as an analytical framework is helpful because it reveals how migrants navigate and resist issues like trauma, vulnerability, state-imposed uncertainty, long-term family separation, and prolonged legal processes.

In this context, first, we review key philosophical and human geographical background literature on time and temporality, highlighting how different cultures conceive time, and contrasting linear and structured approaches to conceptualizing time with the more fluid and cyclical views found in many non-Western cosmologies. Next, we review recent progress in applying the “temporal lens” to migration and refugee research within human geography and related disciplines such as sociology and anthropology. Finally, we discuss the role of time and temporality in geographical study of migration, arguing that the experiences of migrants are significantly shaped by temporal logics. We hope other scholars may find the concept of temporal logics useful in their own work.

II Temporal lenses on human migration

Concepts of time vary among places and cultures. In Indian cosmology, time moves in repeating cycles (Clayton, 2008). Indigenous Australians conceptualize “dreamtime” as continual re-creation through ritual (Dodgshon, 2008). In many African societies, time is event-dependent, with events unfolding along separate and intertwining trajectories marked by milestones like rituals and growth phases, reinforcing continuity and tradition (Mbiti, 1990). This cultural variation in “temporality”—the subjective experience of time—has significant implications for human geography and underpins a vibrant theoretical literature (Clayton and Vickers, 2019; Collins and Shubin, 2015). The global rise of modern Western hegemony has standardized linear and teleological concepts of time, seen as a pathway from the past through the present to an ultimate future end (Gross, 1985; Leutloff-Grandits, 2017). This view supports key Western religious and philosophical frameworks, such as the Judeo-Christian timeline from creation to Armageddon, the Hegelian-Marxian historical dialectic ending in communism, and the Modernization framework justifying Western colonial expansion by portraying different societies as progressing at varying rates along a single historical trajectory.

Time and temporality are longstanding themes in philosophy and science (Griffiths et al., 2013; Suisky, 2009). Zera Yacob (1599–1692) viewed time as a continuum in which God’s creation is sustained and perfected, considering natural cycles, such as the seasons and celestial movements, as evidence of divine order (Sumner, 1999). Time, in Yacob’s view, is not merely a sequence of events but a divine framework within which all creation unfolds and evolves according to divine wisdom and purpose (Sumner, 1999). For Aristotle, the paradox of linear time was that the past no longer exists, the future does not yet exist, and the present is simply an infinitesimally thin limit between the two. Suspended between what has passed and what is yet to come, time feels elusive, almost as if it doesn’t exist at all. Isaac Newton (1642–1727) and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) both considered time to be absolute, objective, and independent of space (Suisky, 2009). However, while Newton viewed time as unceasing and external to events, Kant believed time could be disrupted by social and geographical processes such as migration (Dodgshon, 2008). Kant’s emphasis on the centrality of time in human experience later informed Antony Giddens’ theory of structuration, in which time is essential to social organization (Giddens, 1984). On the other hand, Leibniz viewed time as relational and inseparable from space, conceptualizing it as the “order of successions” and including phenomena like “temporal simultaneity,” later reinforced by Einstein’s theory of relativity (Pannenberg, 2005). McTaggart introduced “A-series” (absolute and linear) and “B-series” (static and tenseless) time (McTaggart, 1908), viewing time as unreal, echoing Parmenides’ belief that only the present exists, and time is an illusion (Kebede, 2013). Heidegger, influenced by McTaggart, emphasized the importance of the “now” and the temporal sequence of future, present, and past, viewing time as a priori and humans as embedded in it, with the awareness of their finitude shaping their understanding of time and existence (Heidegger, 1927).

In English, “time” typically refers to linear, measurable dimensions, while “temporality” captures subjective experiences (Steineck, 2019). As Iparraguirre (2016: 614) states, time is “the phenomenon of becoming,” whereas temporality is “the interpretation of this becoming.” Understanding these subjective elements, including social norms and symbols denoting stasis and change, is crucial (Cwerner, 2001). Interest in temporalities focuses on the subjective properties of time, recognizing that concepts of time vary among places: different parts of the world encounter, harness, and make sense of time differently (Clayton and Vickers, 2019; Steineck, 2019). To understand the experiential dimension of migration and displacement, researchers must consider the different “rhythms and flows, sequences and frequencies, duration of activities, and pace of daily life” in the social backgrounds of migrants (Cwerner, 2001; Munn, 1992).

Despite progress, the literature on temporalities of migration faces conceptual challenges. We outline three approaches in recent literature: the “displacement and mobilities approach,” the “transit and waiting approach,” and the “immigrant settlement approach.” These approaches often reify problematic temporal categories of “past,” “present,” and “future,” leading to linear and Western-centric views of migrant experiences. We elaborate upon a new “temporal logics” conceptual framework to address these issues, offering a more nuanced perspective for scholars of human geography. This framework aims to help scholars better understand and address key conceptual problems in the literature on temporalities of migration.

III Temporal logics: A new conceptual approach

This paper elaborates on a new approach to theorizing and analyzing the socio-cultural embeddedness of time as it relates to processes of human migration and forced displacement. At the core of this new approach is the concept of “temporal logics,” a term coined to capture complex differences in how time is subjectively experienced in different places. Empirical research by Tefera and Gamlen (2023: 246) defined temporal logics in preliminary form as “distinctive regimes that order and regulate lived experiences of time,” applying this concept to empirical findings from research on refugee-background Ethiopians in Melbourne, Australia. This research revealed the importance of understanding contrasts between the temporal regimes that interviewees had internalized in their origin countries and transit journeys, and the prevailing temporal logics of a large Australian city. However, Tefera and Gamlen only briefly sketched the concept of temporal logics, without providing a detailed elaboration of its implications. In this paper, we build on that empirical work to provide a more fleshed-out theorization of temporal logics and their relevance to wider geographical research on migration, which we hope will be of use to future researchers.

1 What are temporal logics?

Temporal logics are distinct regimes that order, regulate, and govern lived experiences of time, with a focus on how time is experienced within specific settings, including various geographic locations and times (Tefera and Gamlen, 2023). The notion of temporal logics draws partly on what Rowell et al. (2016) call temporal structures, according to which there are three fundamental dimensions of time: concepts, orientations, and patterns. According to Rowell et al. (2016: 309-311), temporal conceptions are peoples’ internal constructs and understandings of time (such as what time is and how it should be acted upon), while temporal orientations are the way individuals position themselves in relation to these conceptions (such as to the past, present, and future). Temporal patterns, meanwhile, are observable arrangements of activities and events shaped by collective notions of temporal concepts and orientations. These include the timing, pacing, sequencing, durations, and rates of recurrence of activities that constitute practices. From Rowell et al.’s (2016) perspective, temporal conceptions and orientations are individual, while temporal patterns are social and structural, reflecting shared understandings and practices within a given community. They argue that time is integral to understanding how institutions exert their influence on practices and their reproduction.

From our perspective, while their concept of temporal structures helps to theorize collective actions within a time-space, it falls short of capturing the intricacies of individual lived and embodied experiences due to their emphasis on structure over agency. Put differently, temporal logics encompass not only collective and sociological elements of temporal organization but also affective and cognitive constructs and responses related to the perception, passage, and use of time. The idea of temporal logics is intended to evoke the biological materiality as well as the mentality involved in adopting and embodying the temporal norms of a specific place and period. It is related to what Bourdieu (2018) called the “habitus” (While the concept of habitus emphasizes ingrained dispositions and routines shaped by past experiences, temporal logics engage with multiple frameworks for understanding and organizing time, allowing individuals to respond to specific, often changing, circumstances). There is thus an existential dimension to temporal logics: they express how individuals draw selectively on various temporal concepts and categories in the process of “self-creation,” to give meaning to their experiences and to place these experiences within a wider narrative of their individual life projects (Collins and Shubin, 2015). The concept of temporal logics invites a focus on how understandings of time shape the experiences and actions of migrants, highlighting the various temporalities that emerge as migrants engage with their surroundings, interact with local communities, and navigate the challenges of settlement.

However, it is essential to recognize that temporal logics are mutually constituted by temporal structures. For instance, the schedules of refugee camps or the bureaucratic timelines imposed by immigration processes are temporal structures that shape how refugees experience time (Axelsson, 2022). These logics significantly influence how individuals perceive, experience, and make sense of time, thereby shaping their agency. A migrant who views displacement as temporary before achieving stability exercises future-oriented temporal logic, or they may blend their cultural cyclical time with the host country’s linear time, creating a unique temporal logic influencing their decisions and plans. These aspects shape how temporal logics are formed and exercised. Temporal logics perform a synthesizing role, integrating various temporality concepts. This approach allows for a better understanding of the dynamic interplay between structural, cognitive, and affective dimensions of time as experienced by individuals. Thus, temporal logics encompass and synthesize these diverse elements, reflecting how individuals navigate and negotiate their temporal realities within different contexts.

Temporal logics also differ from temporal structures in terms of conceptual approach to the relationship between time and power. The temporal logics of migrant and refugee individuals are shaped by their pre-displacement backgrounds and their journeys through various spatiotemporal contexts. These background temporal logics influence the process through which migrants mesh with the temporal logics of any given settlement location, which are also influenced by power dynamics within social, political, and economic realms (Cohen, 2018). Those who hold a greater degree of power impose their preferred temporal frameworks—including temporal categories, structures, schedules, routines, speeds, and rhythms—onto those with less power (Cohen, 2018; Gross, 1985). As Dodghson (2008) puts it, dominant groups establish their temporal norms as the standard (Gross, 1985): they make their way of organizing time (activities and schedules) the default reference point, which reinforces their authority and control over institutions and resources; meanwhile, disadvantaged groups often have their own subaltern but distinctive temporalities, shaped by their unique experiences and challenges. For us, the “logics” in temporal logics are therefore akin to what Michel Foucault, in his lectures on government and governmentality, called the “rationalities” underpinning specific “technologies of power” used to “conduct the conduct” of human beings (Foucault, 2009: 186). Unlike for temporal structures, temporal logics foreground the idea that time is not necessarily a shared experience: experiences of time vary with cultural backgrounds, personal histories, and migration trajectories. Each migrant may experience and interpret time in unique ways, influenced by specific circumstances, challenges, and goals, leading to a multitude of temporal experiences even within the same migratory context (Rotter, 2010; Robertson, 2014).

2 Temporal logics as a framework for understanding migration

The notion of temporal logics has previously been sketched as a framework for studying the workings of time in the experiences of migrants and refugees (Tefera 2021; Tefera and Gamlen, 2023). We argue that the consideration of prevailing temporal logics in migration settings provides wider insights into how individual and structural actions are influenced and enacted through temporal frames (Adam, 2004, 2013; Rowell et al., 2016). Migrants’ social actions and behaviors are strongly influenced by the temporal context in which they find themselves, including the histories, cultures, and social norms of the places they have traveled through. This suggests that the interactions of migrants with their environments could be shaped by the dynamic interplay between their unique personal histories and the larger historical and social contexts of the various places where they have lived or transited.

As we conceptualize it, the temporal patterns that migrants experience are shaped by broader structural factors, including cultural norms, social institutions, government policies and regulations, humanitarian aid, and international development practices (Cohen, 2018; Sanyal, 2012). But just as in Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration, where agency loops back to shape structure, there are internalized temporal logics that migrants inhabit and act out in unfamiliar settings—and these go on to reshape wider sociologically determined temporal structures in that place. The process involves what has been called “temporal dissonance,” in which the different temporal logics of newcomers and established populations clash, resulting in misunderstandings and frustrations on both sides (Tefera and Gamlen, 2023). To resolve temporal dissonance, migrants often actively reconstruct and negotiate between their own temporal logics and those of the settlement country.

This negotiation and reconstruction process is crucial because it is not only the institutional structures of the settlement country but also those of the migrants’ places of origin and transit that shape their temporal experiences (Collins and Shubin, 2015). These institutional arrangements can inhibit or enable certain practices and impose particular rhythms and cycles on lived experiences (Edensor, 2006). For instance, the waiting time for admission or resettlement to a new country is largely determined by national policies and international agreements, rather than by individual preferences or choices. However, human beings can actively redefine their time conceptions and restructure their time orientations to respond to new encounters and navigate multiple institutional temporal structures (Rotter, 2010; Mountz, 2011). Thus, while migration and displacement journeys may involve sequential patterns at some points in time, they may be sporadic at others.

The temporal logics framework provides a new lens through which to understand the socio-cultural embeddedness of time in migration processes. By considering both individual agency and broader structural influences, this approach offers a comprehensive view of how time shapes and is shaped by the experiences of migrants. We hope that future researchers will find this framework useful for exploring the complex temporal dimensions of migration and displacement.

3 Why temporal logics?

One reason for employing the framework of temporal logics is that migrants’ experiences are particularly strongly associated with change (Taylor, 2014). Temporal logics enable us to examine how the experiences of migrants are influenced by various temporal factors, including the length of displacement, the timing and character of significant occurrences (such as oppression, conflict, or taking flight), the transitional stages migrants go through (such as navigating a series of transit locations, settling into a new country, and acclimatizing to a new culture), or the places where they stay over time (either as stops on a journey to a destination country or as adaptations to their situation once already in that country).

Another reason to use the framework of temporal logics is that being a migrant or refugee demands negotiation of these individual existential forms of time with the cultural and social ones that predominate in various geographical places and temporal phases of the migration journey (Steincek, 2019). As migrants go through transit locations and settle in different places, their experiences unfold in the context of dynamic temporal settings that produce new expressions of their own relationship to time: they re-classify and re-narrate the timeframes, phases, speeds, rhythms, and other temporal categories that give meaning to their own life projects (Clayton and Vickers, 2019; Rowell et al., 2016). Such individual-level elements of temporality are crucial to understanding the migratory experience, but they are not easily accounted for within a framework that focuses on structure (as does Rowell’s notion of temporal structure).

A third argument in favor of the temporal logics framework in this field is that individual migrants may have unique ways of understanding and orienting themselves in relation to time. For example, some migrants who have spent long periods in transit may conceive of time as reversible, in the sense that they will revert to a pre-displacement state of existence once they reach their country of settlement. Others may view this transit time as irreversible and wasted. Some migrants may be in a position to strategically adopt optimistic, future-oriented temporal logics, in order to resist being defined by a traumatic past or an uncertain present (Turner, 2015). Other migrants may focus on the present moment and prioritize day-to-day survival (El-Shaarawi, 2015), or alternatively may look to the future and actively anticipate their resettlement (Roberts, 2019; Turnbull, 2016).

The concept of temporal logics also provides a deeper understanding of the challenges that migrants encounter as they navigate various aspects of spatial movement. Migrants may face diverse challenges depending on the duration of their displacement, such as the long-term implications of intergenerational poverty, social isolation, and mental health issues (Sagbakken et al., 2020). In the case of forced migrants, the timing of significant events like war or persecution has long-lasting impacts on mental health and well-being, which can be exacerbated by the length of the displacement shock, the time spent “waiting” or otherwise in transit, and any delays in the delivery of settlement support (Turnbull, 2016).

Temporal logics, as an analytical framework, offers a unique lens to analyze and interpret time-related relationships, sequences of events, patterns, and timings at different stages of migration journeys and life courses (Collins and Shubin, 2015), while also holding methodological significance. Researchers can examine the temporal structures within which migrants are embedded, and also their nuanced, embodied experiences, by focusing on how their individual lives unfold through time. For example, the daily life of seasonal agricultural workers, such as those in the H-2A visa program in the United States or those holiday makers in Australia, is structured around the agricultural seasons and work schedules, which dictates their social life, community engagement, and even family dynamics (Ho, 2021; Robertson, 2014). Another example is the experience of migrants, whose lives are characterized by displacement, uncertainty, and frequent transitions. Their lives are often marked by abrupt changes, unpredictable timelines, and a suspension of normal routines, which greatly impact their mental health and well-being (Sagbakken et al., 2020).

Migrants may also undergo stages of displacement, return, and re-displacement in an unpredictable sequence. Their journey does not always culminate in reaching the intended destination, leading to periods of uncertain waiting and stalled lives (Conlon, 2011; Turnbull, 2016). In such contexts, this analytical lens has the potential to reveal how migrants navigate periods of immobility and resist multiple vulnerabilities at different moments and stages. By examining the strategies developed by migrants during their journeys, researchers can uncover not only coping mechanisms but also innovative practices for building resilience. Researchers may employ temporal logics to analyze the complex and nonlinear nature of migratory experiences, whether through tracking changes in psychological well-being over time, investigating resilience-building strategies, or identifying critical periods of adaptation.

4 Methodological application

We envisage many ways of applying the construct of temporal logics methodologically. While the temporal logics framework allows for the examination of migrants’ overall experiences, it also recognizes their specific, individual variations. For instance, in the pre-displacement phase, this approach enables analysis of how migrants strategize the timing of their departure, navigate the complexities of their journey, prioritize their actions, and coordinate with others such as brokers or fellow migrants (Sagbakken et al., 2020). Post-arrival, the temporal logics framework may extend to exploring the duration and sequencing of key milestones, such as securing employment, achieving self-sufficiency, and obtaining legal status, as well as significant life events like family reunification and attaining a sense of stability and well-being. Efforts to understand these experiences require the researcher to closely engage with the personal stories, perspectives, and narratives of migrants and with the unique temporal rhythms that characterize each individual’s journey. Employing temporal logics helps to capture the temporal dimensions of their experiences more authentically.

This approach emphasizes understanding the unique ways migrants experience time, using qualitative methodologies and culturally sensitive techniques. It allows researchers to explore how migrants perceive and interpret time inductively, letting insights emerge from the data rather than imposing pre-existing notions (McMichael et al., 2015). This method highlights how internal perceptions and external factors shape migrants’ daily lives and long-term goals, contrasting with the temporal structures approach that focuses on institutional frameworks and individual actions. Thus, temporal logics offer a comprehensive lens to understand the varied temporal dimensions influencing migrants’ experiences and decisions.

In addition to qualitative methodologies, employing quantitative methods such as surveys on time-use budgets and GPS tracking significantly enhances the understanding of temporal logics. Time-use surveys provide detailed insights into how migrants allocate their time across various activities, revealing patterns, and priorities that might not be apparent through qualitative data alone (Hubl et al., 2017). Geo-tagged tweets and GPS tracking methods offer precise data on migrants’ movements and the spatial–temporal dimensions of their daily lives (Hubl et al., 2017), shedding light on how they navigate new environments and the temporal constraints they face. These quantitative approaches complement qualitative narratives, providing a more comprehensive picture of migrants’ experiences.

A key aspect of temporal logics is the emphasis on the underlying rationalities and structures of time. The “logics” in temporal logics are the different rationalities and structures through which time is experienced and understood. This approach recognizes that migrants navigate multiple, often overlapping, temporal frameworks that shape their lives in diverse ways. These logics include not only the chronological sequence of past, present, and future but also cyclical, relational, and anticipatory temporalities (where migrants plan for uncertain futures). In fact, the “logic” part highlights the rational and structured ways in which migrants make sense of their temporal realities. For example, the cyclical nature of cultural celebrations, religious observances, and agricultural seasons plays an important role in shaping migrants’ lives and decisions (Triandafyllidou, 2022). These cyclical temporalities interact with linear timelines of visa renewals, work contracts, and educational pursuits, which create a dynamic interplay of temporal logics.

IV Temporality in geographies of migration

Temporalities—understood as the subjective dimensions of time—have recently gained attention from human geographers and scholars in related fields, including those studying migration (Adam, 2004; Harvey, 1999; Mitchell, 2023; Robertson, 2014). In the 1980s, sociologists made significant advances in understanding time and temporality (Baert, 1999; Gross, 1985; Levine, 1999; Zerubavel, 1985). Geographers began to contribute in the 1990s (Adam, 1994; Massey, 1999). Human geographers have since explained time from macro-level perspectives like globalization and modernity to micro-scale everyday life situations such as home-to-work commutes and mobility within new settlements (Harvey, 1999; Jessop, 2010; Massey, 1999).

Scholars from sociology and anthropology have also advanced theories on time and temporality. For example, Baert (1999) conceptualizes time through five dichotomies: synchrony-diachrony, distant-proximate, constant-changing, historical-individual, and cause-effect. Another view holds that time is integral to social experience rather than social change (Steineck, 2019). Place-making is shaped by the repeated patterns and routines of everyday life, defined by their timing, duration, and regularity (Zerubavel, 1985). Focusing on temporality helps us recognize different time-worlds in which geographical places exist and events like migration and displacement happen.

The idea that perceptions of time are embedded within economic and socio-cultural contexts has key implications for geographical studies of migration, mobility, and displacement. For example, Levine et al. (1999) showed that life was “faster” in wealthier countries and argued that the “pace of life” is crucial in defining a place and its people. Due to these differences, rural migrants often struggle to adapt to urban temporalities (Tefera and Gamlen, 2023). The focus on time in migration research took off with Saulo Cwerner’s works “The Times of Migration” and “Faster, Faster and Faster: The Time Politics of Asylum in the UK” (2004: 32). Cwerner noted that focusing on migrants’ temporal experience can illuminate the nature of migration itself, its meanings, and how it displaces and re-embeds people and communities globally.

The literature on time and temporality in migration and refugee research has grown significantly (Brun, 2015; Mitchell, 2023; Robertson, 2014; Tazzioli, 2018; Vidal and Musset, 2016). Temporal analysis has been used to understand how migrants decide when to travel, sequence life goals and transitions (Robertson, 2020), and perceive time during transit (Griffiths et al., 2013). It also explores how migrants may re-route, pause, or “stretch” time (Vidal and Musset, 2016), how time shapes experiences of inclusion and exclusion (Clayton and Vickers, 2019), how time interacts with socio-cultural identity (El-Shaarawi, 2015), and how it functions as a disciplinary tool in detention centers (Robertson, 2014; Tazzioli, 2018). These analyses emphasize pluralistic perspectives on time’s significance for different migrant groups (Cohen, 2018; Robertson, 2014).

1 Key temporal approaches

Below, we identify three key approaches to understanding spatiotemporal processes in recent human geography literature on migration: the displacement and mobilities approach, the transit and waiting approach, and the immigrant settlement approach. We review and categorize the literature on time and migration into these three approaches, and in the next section, we explain how each depends on and reinforces conventional temporal categories that the notion of temporal logics seeks to move beyond.

1.1 The displacement and mobilities approach

Much recent displacement research adopts a mobility perspective, viewing migrants as individuals on a journey from displacement, through transit, to settlement and sometimes return (El-Sharaawi, 2015; Robertson, 2020). This focus on mobility has been criticized for neglecting experiences of immobility (McNevin and Missbach, 2018). Missbach (2015) argues that while mobility is emphasized, involuntary immobility, stagnation, and stasis are overlooked. On the other hand, scholars like Vidal and Musset (2016) see immobility as part of waiting, which involves both stillness and hope. Waiting is seen as a barrier to mobility, embodying forced immobility with the expectation of its eventual end.

Before the 1980s, migrants were seen as displaced individuals seeking a future place (Eade and Smith, 2011). This shifted with the emergence of transnationalism in the late 1980s and early 1990s, highlighting migrants living in the present, past, and future through memories, aspirations, and desires (Smith, 1998). Research on life courses and life histories also examines the ordered steps and transitions through which individuals construct meaningful life projects (Collins and Shubin, 2015). Mobilities research has grown substantially in human geography, sociology, and anthropology since then. For instance, Vertovec (2015) explores spatial migration patterns, seeing mobility as a response to and coping mechanism for forced mobility. Scholars like King and Christou (2011), Boccagni (2012), and Taylor (2014) study transnationalism, showing how migrants engage with home and host countries. Research by Leutloff-Grandits (2017), McNevin and Missbach (2018), and Axelsson (2022) examines how border governance shapes the mobility of migrants. Dekker and Engbersen (2014) study technology-related mobilities, such as social media’s role in facilitating and maintaining migratory connections.

Examining such works suggest that the displacement and mobilities approach views migration as a temporal process with distinct phases (Stein, 1981). Each phase has its own duration and sequence, often intertwined. For example, within settlement, migrants transition from arrival to adjustment, involving shifts in temporal frameworks and locales. Stein (1981) highlights causal relationships between temporalities, where one phase influences subsequent phases, shaping future decisions and actions. This interconnectedness suggests that earlier experiences and strategies set the groundwork for future opportunities and challenges, illustrating how migrants’ journeys are shaped by a series of temporally linked events and decisions. Roberts’ (2019) study of Venezuelan migrants illustrates this approach by showing how migrants use time under temporary visas to navigate and shape their mobility trajectories. Despite the unpredictability of migration outcomes, migrants use time strategically to create future mobility possibilities and security (Roberts, 2019). This perspective emphasizes the fluidity and interconnectedness of movement and displacement, with time as a dynamic and active element shaping spatial experiences and outcomes.

1.2 The transit and waiting approach

Living in a transit country shapes how migrants respond to their present circumstances. For instance, one of the most common experiences of migrants is the condition of “waiting” (Hyndman and Giles, 2011). In many situations, migrants wait for long periods of time in their first country of asylum before some are given the opportunity of resettlement in a third country (Conlon, 2011; Hyndman and Giles, 2011). Some recognized migrants have to wait as long as 20 years in a refugee camp before being resettled in a new country (Tefera and Gamlen, 2023). Experiences of waiting are perceived differently across societies. In some, waiting may be a positive opportunity for reflection, patience, and contemplation. In others, it may be associated with socializing and building relationships. Waiting may also be seen as a necessary part of the process of reaching a desired destination (Turner, 2015). These different experiences suggest that migrants respond to particular temporal experiences such as “waiting” depending on their deeply internalized concepts of what time is and should be.

Recent research suggests that waiting involves both active and passive engagement, with social, psychological, cultural, geographic, and political dimensions (Vidal and Musset, 2016). Studies of waiting emerged in the 1980s and have proliferated in the last decade (Brun, 2015; Conlon, 2011; Elsharaawi, 2015; Hyndman and Giles, 2011; McNeivin and Misbach, 2018; Mountz, 2011; Turner, 2015; Vidal and Musset, 2016). These works indicate that waiting is not merely wasted, passive, empty, or muted time but is more nuanced, involving both active and passive forms of engagement, with potentially negative or positive outcomes (Rotter, 2010, 2016). This discussion is relevant for refugees in transit countries and those facing prolonged uncertainty in destination countries, such as awaiting temporary visa renewals or asylum applications.

Some legal and political studies treat waiting as an effect of state control. States may detain migrants to prevent them from accessing territories or prolong waiting by delaying visa processing (Cohen, 2018; Conlon, 2011; Tazzioli, 2018). Other studies emphasize that refugee experiences of waiting are neither linear nor homogeneous (Griffiths et al., 2013). For example, El-sharaawi (2015) explores temporal and spatial uncertainties in the waiting experience of Iraqi refugees. Turnbull (2016) examines waiting in immigration detention, while Turner (2015) studies young Burundian refugees in Nairobi. Brun (2015) theorizes “agency-in-waiting” among Georgians during protracted internal displacement. Studies treat waiting as meaningful and potentially positive or alternatively as a site of negative struggle—or both. Vidal and Musset (2016) describe waiting as characterized by immobility and hope: the goal of settlement is obstructed now, but it may be realized in the future.

1.3 The immigrant settlement approach

Almost all migration studies consider how relevant processes change over time. Quantitative studies often describe migration in terms of “flows,” “waves,” and “influxes,” implying intensification and acceleration through time but assuming time is the same everywhere (Griffiths, 2014; Griffiths et al., 2013). Data availability and comparability issues have long hindered comparative longitudinal migration research, limiting the development of temporal perspectives in this area (Gamlen, 2010).

Questions of temporality play a larger role in studies of immigrant and refugee settlement, which emphasize phases of adaptation (Peisker and Tilbury, 2003). Settlement is often seen as an ordered temporal sequence of arrival, adjustment, and assimilation (Stein, 1981). However, other studies of settlement often consider the interaction of different processes occurring at different speeds and time frames, such as finding housing and work, acquiring language skills, and adopting permanent residence and citizenship (Robertson, 2014; Triandafyllidou, 2022). This complexity requires a more nuanced understanding of temporality. Some studies treat refugee resettlement as a dialectical process with ups and downs that start with arrival, move through recovery and resignation, and culminate in stability (Stein, 1981; Simich, 2003; Peisker and Tilbury, 2003; McMichael et al., 2015). Others see resettlement as a set of dynamic transitions yielding different outcomes based on migrants’ experiences in their new community (McDonald et al., 2008). This perspective often links to questions about the role of service provision for immigrants. Migrants typically go through processes in an “arrival” phase (McDonald et al., 2008; Stein, 1981). If supported, they may enter a “renegotiation and integration phase” involving belonging, acceptance, and empowerment (Simich et al., 2003). Without support, they may enter a phase of “alienation and marginalization” (Agutter and Kevin, 2019).

Some scholars criticize migration studies for reducing time to a tool for measuring processes of becoming (Eade and Smith, 2011; Shubin and Collins, 2015). Temporality scholars highlight that time is multidimensional, nonlinear, and non-sequential, shaping migrant and refugee subjectivities in complex ways (McMichael et al., 2015; Robertson, 2014; Triandafyllidou, 2022). This is rarely acknowledged because spatial analysis is conventionally seen as geography’s distinct focus, and spaces are often depicted as territorial containers without reference to temporal processes (Massey, 1999).

In contrast with linear approaches, settlement has also been conceptualized by human geographers in terms of speed, rhythm, and pace. Studies on the “pace of life” emphasize how time may subjectively “accelerate” in urban areas and “decelerate” in rural areas (Cwerner, 2004; Levine, 2008). Different places have different temporal “rhythms” (Edensor, 2006; Tefera and Gamlen, 2023). Focusing on temporalities in migrant and refugee experiences can draw attention to issues such as precarity and uncertainty (Griffiths et al., 2013; Turnbull, 2016).

2 Key temporal categories

In this section, we identify three conventional temporal categories reinforced in recent literature: “The Past” (associated with remembering displacement and transit), “The Present” (involved with navigating resettlement), and “The Future” (characterized by anticipating resolution). We critique existing approaches for their tendency to reify these categories within a teleological framework, viewing migration as a linear journey rather than a complex spatiotemporal process. We explain how the “temporal logics” framework problematizes these categories, enabling a different approach to analyzing time in migration.

2.1 Remembering displacement and transit in the past

The displacement and mobilities approach reifies the category of “the past,” casting migrants as individuals whose past displacements determine their current and future conditions. This view suggests that migrants are preoccupied with past experiences, which shapes their current predicament. The temporal logics framework offers a way to de-reify “the past” and look beyond this teleological view.

Migrants use memories of the past to make sense of the present and engage with the future through aspirations and hopes (Bunnell et al., 2017; Roberts, 2019). Their present experiences are shaped by past meanings, through memories and records. For example, migrants may feel alienated in the early stages of settlement due to cultural, linguistic, and ethnic differences. This may drive them to reminisce about the past as a coping mechanism (Agutter and Kevin, 2019). These coping mechanisms navigate the uncertainty of their current situation, showing that the past is not fixed but an evolving part of their temporal experience. Temporal logics offer migrants an alternative lens to view the past, influencing their present actions and future plans.

Several works address migration and memory (Borda-González and Kendall, 2016; Damousi, 2015; Davidson and Eng, 2008; Mitchell, 2023; Mueller-Hirth and Oyola, 2018; Redclift, 2017). Mitchell (2023) highlights spatiotemporal practices in uncovering past erasures and connecting them to the present. Mueller-Hirth and Oyola (2018) study time and temporality in transnational post-colonial societies. Redclift (2017) examines how migrants memorize historical conflicts and their impact on diasporic consciousness. Borda-González and Kendall (2016) discuss the role of collective memory in various disciplines. Damousi (2015) explores how inter-generational war experiences are memorized and affect present experiences. Davidson and Eng (2008) focus on how factors like gender, ethnicity, and age affect migrants’ memories. In these works, we see that memory links the past, present, and future and is thus essential to migrants’ experiences in a new country. While memory refers to the past, it is evoked in the present and aims at the future (Davidson and Eng, 2008). It serves as a coping mechanism and provides continuity and connection to roots, transcending temporal and spatial boundaries. Its influence adapts to changing circumstances, reshaping perceptions, and forging new narratives toward settlement and belonging.

2.2 Navigating resettlement in the present

A key issue with the “transit and waiting” approach which we previously outlined is that it reifies and depends upon the conventional category of “the present.” From this perspective, the migrant is a figure constantly in a state of transition between complete states of being—a person who is presently “navigating resettlement,” despite having been “displaced in the past” and despite heading toward “settlement in the future.” The concept of temporal logics offers an alternative approach to analyzing the spatiotemporal processes involved in “resettlement,” without reifying the problematic category of “the present.”

How time is conceptualized by migrants may affect the overall settlement experience. Migrants may have transnational orientations, meaning that they share the cultural discourses and philosophies of two or more nations, as they often spend time in other countries before they reach their desired destination (Boccagni, 2012; Eade and Smith, 2011; Smith, 1998). At different parts of the journey, they find themselves engulfed by different time cultures and traditions of organizing time. As Munn (1992: 114) puts it, “a particular spatiotemporal formulation of past-present relations occurs when relative geo-spatial distance from a given reference point such as one’s homeland is roughly correlated with the relative temporal distances of different eras from the present.” Put differently, geographical distance from an important location may influence the way people understand and conceptualize the past and present. When far from “home,” they may perceive the past as more distant from the present, similar to their current location’s distance from their homeland. Thus, migrants in a new country may feel that their cultural traditions are more distant and less relevant to their current life than when they lived in their homeland.

This idea is particularly relevant for migrants who must navigate multiple space–time contexts and negotiate varied temporal logics during their settlement experience. Immersed in different cultural discourses during their spatial trajectories, they forge new meanings of time and alter their actions accordingly. As they navigate life in their new destination, settlement becomes a life-long assignment of negotiating, reconciling, making sense of, and narrating the varied temporal logics that have shaped them. Although they are in a new country, which disrupts aspects of their ways of life, they do not completely terminate their connections to their country of origin or other significant stopover points in their journey (King and Christou, 2011). They have to juggle to harmonize their accumulated and internalized temporal logics with the temporal realities of whatever here and now they find themselves thrown into. These realities demonstrate the potential for temporal dissonance between migrants’ different social construction of time and the tempo, rhythm, and speed of life in their country of settlement. This temporal dissonance may diminish over time as migrants learn new ways of adjusting to their country of settlement and as the norms around the shift to better accommodate and include them (Peisker and Tilbury, 2003).

Approaching the question of settlement through the lens of temporal logics thus has implications for policy and planning processes (McDonald et al., 2008). The way migrants construct and utilize time shapes their interaction with others and their participation in wider community life. It makes sense to consider the different temporal logics that migrants bring to their engagement with their place of settlement, because temporal logic cuts across the spectrum of factors that inhibit or facilitate settlement—much in the same way as other key factors such as educational attainment and linguistic competence. Just as in the realms of skills recognition, upskilling, and language training, when the necessary support from government, NGOs, and communities are not in place, migrants may find it hard to contribute as productive members of the society.

3 De-reifying the past/present/future

The immigrant settlement approach reifies and depends upon the conventional category of “the future,” where the ultimate goal of migration is assimilation, integration, or incorporation into the destination society. The temporal construct of the future is a fundamental aspect of social and cultural existence. Humans are inherently future-oriented, with aspirations entrenched in the imagined category of “the future” (Bunnell et al., 2017). The possibility of a better future motivates migration; without envisioning this future, migration is hard to conceive. Refugee resettlement exemplifies this, as migrants often wait in limbo, focusing on an imagined future. This delayed gratification shapes migration experiences.

A range of literature in human geography and migration studies addresses migrants’ engagement with notions of “the future” (Anne Drangsland, 2020; Bunnel et al., 2017; El-Sharaawi, 2015; Turner, 2015). An analogy is the experience of imprisonment, which, like migration, involves a loss of control and disruption in experiencing time. Wilson (2004) explores prisoners’ temporal experiences, including judicial time, incarcerative time, “getting-out” time, and “calendar time”—similar to migrants awaiting visa decisions, in camps, or detention centers. Prisoners focus more on routine tasks when release is near (Wilson, 2004). Similarly, Griffiths (2014) examines how irregular migrants view the future with both hope and fear, as it can’t be accessed through memory. Willen (2007) highlights how future uncertainty stresses migrants, forcing them to constantly negotiate their identity and social context.

A further theoretical aspect of interest is that there are temporal nuances within the idea of the future itself. It has been highlighted that societies with more power and resources attempt to control the future through planning (Thrift 1977: 447). However, for migrant and refugee communities, who are often marginalized and lack resources, the future is a more uncertain and difficult terrain to navigate. The dependence on governments and external actors increases their vulnerability and limits their agency in shaping their own future (Anne Drangsland, 2020; Wilson, 2004). The temporal multiplicity of the future poses challenging questions about the extent to which migrants can exert control over their future, and whether it is realistic to make predictions about the future given the temporal constraints of their situations. This highlights the need for more critical and reflexive approaches to understanding the future.

In the immigrant settlement approach, migrants and their host communities address migration-related issues expected to be resolved in “the future,” often treating it as a static endpoint. This overlooks the complexities and fluidities of migration experiences. Temporal logics offer an alternative by recognizing the multiplicity of temporal experiences and trajectories migrants navigate. Rather than seeing assimilation as a final goal, temporal logics appreciate the ongoing, dynamic processes shaping migrant lives. Conventional approaches focus on teaching migrants’ local language, customs, and norms, aiming for future assimilation and measuring success by conformity. Temporal logics shift this perspective, acknowledging migrants’ past, present, and anticipated futures intersect in complex ways. Some envision multiple futures, others plan to return home, and some aim to establish transnational businesses. Temporal logics thus de-reify “the future” and enable more complex spatiotemporal analyses of migration. Besides its conceptual usefulness, this approach may have practical implications: it may help develop more nuanced and informed policies and interventions to support migrants through different processes and stages of displacement, transit, and settlement.

V Conclusion

This paper has examined recent advancements in human geography regarding the temporal dimensions of migration and refugee experiences. We highlighted three key approaches in existing literature: the displacement and mobilities approach, the transit and waiting approach, and the immigrant settlement approach. These approaches provide extensive insights into how migration is studied and interpreted in relation to time. However, we critiqued these approaches for reifying conventional temporal categories—the past, the present, and the future—thereby oversimplifying the complex spatiotemporal nature of migration.

As highlighted, the displacement and mobilities approach emphasizes migration’s dynamic nature but neglects experiences of immobility and complex temporalities beyond a linear sequence of mobility milestones. This calls for examining how spaces and places shape and are shaped by people’s mobility and immobility with different temporal logics. Similarly, the transit and waiting approach, while recognizing the significance of waiting in migration, often overlooks the diverse ways migrants engage with time during displacement and resettlement. The specific spatial contexts—whether refugee camps, detention facilities, rural farms, or urban centers—interact with temporal experiences, shaping different migrants’ experiences of waiting time. The immigrant settlement approach, focusing on adaptation and integration phases, risks reducing settlement to a linear progression toward assimilation, disregarding the multiplicity of temporal processes. Settlement involves negotiating place identities, remaking home, and reconfiguring historical, social, and material landscapes (Tefera, 2021). Understanding how migrants’ temporal experiences shape places and influence the social fabric of both migrants and host communities highlights the necessity for geographers to integrate temporal concepts into their analyses.

To address these limitations, we propose the concept of “temporal logics” as a framework for understanding migration beyond conventional temporal categories. Temporal logics recognize the multidimensional, nonlinear, and non-sequential nature of time, allowing for a more holistic analysis of migration processes that integrate both spatial and temporal dimensions. By de-reifying the categories of the past, the present, and the future, temporal logics enable us to explore how migrants navigate their experiences across different phases of their migratory journeys, including how they adapt to varying temporal orientations and rhythms in specific geographical contexts. This also involves examining how these phases are spatially situated—how the different stages of their migration are influenced by and connected to the physical and social environments they occupy at each point.

In addition to its conceptual usefulness, the framework has some practical implications. Given that engagement with unequal socio-spatial relations is central to social geography (Ho, 2021), it may help to develop more tailored and informed policies and interventions to support migrants. This includes providing targeted support during periods of waiting and uncertainty, offering flexible scheduling for language and job training programs, and creating opportunities for migrants to maintain connections with their cultural heritage while adapting to new temporal norms. Overall, our analysis underscores that by employing temporal logics as a conceptual framework, researchers can move beyond simplistic notions of time and space, embracing the complexity of human mobility and immobility as a spatiotemporal process that reshapes places and is itself reshaped by the diverse geographies of migration.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the earlier iteration of this article. We also acknowledge the use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4.0 in condensing the language of our final draft. The resulting full paper has been thoroughly reviewed and edited by both authors as accurate.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Goshu Wolde Tefera

Note

Author biographies

Goshu Wolde Tefera is an Assistant Professor of Ethnic Studies at California State University Stanislaus where he is also a Faculty Fellow. His teaching and research focus on understanding the experiences of Africans in the diaspora through a pan-African lens and engage with issues of contemporary international migration, forced displacement and diaspora engagement.

Alan Gamlen is a Professor in the School of Regulation and Global Governance at The Australian National University. He is an expert on human migration and mobility. He advises many migration-related international organizations, governments, service providers, and NGOs. He is currently an Australian Research Council Future Fellow and a member of the ARC College of Experts.

References

Adam

(1994) Perceptions of time. In: Ingold

(ed) Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology: Humanity, Culture, and Social Life. London: Routledge.

Adam

(2004) Time. Cambridge: Polity.

Adam

(2013) Time and social theory. John Wiley & Sons.

Agutter

Kevin

(2019) Forgotten women: remembering “unsupported” migrant mothers in post-world war II Australia Remembering Migration: Oral Histories and Heritage in Australia. Berlin: Springer, 107–122. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-17751-5_8.

Anne Drangsland

(2020) Bordering through recalibration: exploring the temporality of the German “ausbildungsduldung”. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38(6): 1128–1145. DOI: 10.1177/2399654420915611.

Axelsson

(2022) Border timespaces: understanding the regulation of international mobility and migration. Geografiska Annaler - Series B: Human Geography 104(1): 59–74. DOI: 10.1080/04353684.2022.2027260.

Baert

(ed) (1999) Time in Contemporary Intellectual Thought. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Boccagni

(2012) Rethinking transnational studies: transnational ties and the transnationalism of everyday life. European Journal of Social Theory 15(1): 117–132. DOI: 10.1177/1368431011423600.

Borda-González

Kendall

(2016) Paris 19: mobility, memory and migration Migration across Boundaries. London: Routledge, 85–104.

10.

Bourdieu

(2018) Structures, habitus, practices Rethinking the Subject. London: Routledge, 31–45. DOI: 10.4324/9780429497643.

11.

Brun

(2015) Active waiting and changing hopes: toward a time perspective on protracted displacement. Social Analysis 59(1): 19–37.

12.

Bunnell

Gillen

ELE

(2017) The prospect of elsewhere: engaging the future through aspirations in asia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 108(1): 35–51. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2017.1336424.

13.

Clayton

(2008) Time in Indian Music: Rhythm, Metre, and Form in North Indian Rãg Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.

14.

Clayton

Vickers

(2019) Temporal tensions: European Union citizen migrants, asylum seekers and refugees navigating dominant temporalities of work in England. Time & Society 28(4): 1464–1488. DOI: 10.1177/0961463X18778466.

15.

Cohen

(2018) The Political Value of Time: Citizenship, Duration, and Democratic Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Collins

Shubin

(2015) Migrant times beyond the life course: the temporalities of foreign English teachers in South Korea. Geoforum 62: 96–104. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.04.002.

17.

Conlon

(2011) Waiting: Feminist perspectives on the spacings/timings of migrant (im) mobility. Gender, Place & Culture 18(3): 353–360. DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2011.566320.

18.

Cwerner

(2001) The times of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27(1): 7–36. DOI: 10.1080/13691830125283.

19.

Cwerner

(2004) Faster, faster and faster: the time politics of asylum in the UK. Time & Society 13(1): 71–88. DOI: 10.1177/0961463X04040747.

20.

Damousi

(2015) Memory and Migration in the Shadow of War: Australia’s Greek Immigrants after World War II and the Greek Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Davidson

Eng

KPK

(2008) Introduction: diasporic memories and identities At Home in the Chinese Diaspora: Memories, Identities and Belongings. Berlin: Springer, 1–11. https://link-springer-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/chapter/10.1057/9780230591622_1.

22.

Dekker

Engbersen

(2014) How social media transform migrant networks and facilitate migration. Global Networks 14(4): 401–418. DOI: 10.1111/glob.12040.

23.

Dodgshon

(2008) Geography’s place in time. Geografiska Annaler - Series B: Human Geography 90(1): 1–15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0467.2008.00272.x.

24.

Eade

Smith

(eds) (2011) Transnational Ties: Cities, Migrations, and Identities. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, Vol. 1. DOI: 10.4324/9781351301282.

25.

Edensor

(2006) Reconsidering national temporalities: institutional times, everyday routines, serial spaces and synchronicities. European Journal of Social Theory 9(4): 525–545. DOI: 10.1177/1368431006071996.

26.

El-Shaarawi

(2015) Living an uncertain future: temporality, uncertainty, and well-being among Iraqi refugees in Egypt. Social Analysis 59(1): 38–56. DOI: 10.3167/sa.2015.590103.

27.

Foucault

(2009) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1978.

28.

Gamlen

(2010) International Migration Data and the Study of Super-diversity. Göttingen: Max Plank Institute of Super Diversity. Working Paper.

29.

Giddens

(1984) Elements of the Theory of Structuration. London: Routledge.

30.

Griffiths

(2014) Out of time: the temporal uncertainties of refused asylum seekers and immigration detainees. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40(12): 1991–2009. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2014.907737.

31.

Griffiths

Rogers

Anderson

(2013) Migration, time and temporalities: review and prospect. COMPAS Research Resources Paper: 199–217. https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/RR-2013-Migration_Time_Temporalities.pdf.

32.

Gross

(1985) Temporality and the modern state. Theory and Society 14(1): 53–82. https://link-springer-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/article/10.1007/BF00160928.

33.

Harvey

(1999) Time-space compression and the postmodern condition. Modernity: Critical Concepts 4: 98–118.

34.

Heidegger

(1927) Being and Time. London: SCM Press.

35.

ELE

(2021) Social geography I: time and temporality. Progress in Human Geography 45(6): 1668–1677. DOI: 10.1177/03091325211009304.

36.

Hübl

Cvetojevic

Hochmair

, et al. (2017) Analyzing refugee migration patterns using geo-tagged tweets. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 6(10): 302.

37.

Hyndman

Giles

(2018) Protracted displacement: living on the edge Forced Migration. London: Routledge, 74–87. DOI: 10.7202/1050860ar.

38.

Iparraguirre

(2016) Time, temporality and cultural rhythmics: an anthropological case study. Time & Society 25(3): 613–633. DOI: 10.1177/0961463X15579802.

39.

Jessop

(2010) The spatiotemporal dynamics of capital and its globalization and their impact on state power and democracy. In: Rosa

Scheuerman

(eds) High-Speed Society: Social Acceleration, Power, and Modernity. University Park: Penn State University Press, 135–158. Retrieved from https://www.psupress.org/.

40.

Kebede

(2013) The Ethiopian conception of time and modernity. Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/phl_fac_pub/111 (accessed 10 July 2024).

41.

King

Christou

(2011) Of counter-diaspora and reverse transnationalism: return mobilities to and from the ancestral homeland. Mobilities 6(4): 451–466. DOI: 10.4324/9781315798073.

42.

Leutloff-Grandits

(ed) (2017) Migrating Borders and Moving Times. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

43.

Levine

(2008) A Geography of Time: On Tempo, Culture, and the Pace of Life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

44.

Levine

Norenzayan

(1999) The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30(2): 178–205. DOI: 10.1177/0022022199030002003.

45.

Massey

(1999) Space‐time, ‘science’ and the relationship between physical geography and human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24(3): 261–276. DOI: 10.1111/j.0020-2754.1999.00261.x.

46.

Mbiti

(1990) African Religions and Philosophy. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

47.

McDonald

Gifford

Webster

, et al. (2008) Refugee Resettlement in Regional and Rural Victoria: Impacts and Policy Issues. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. Available at: https://apo.org.au/node/116091 (accessed 10 July 2024).

48.

McMichael

Nunn

Gifford

, et al. (2015) Studying refugee settlement through longitudinal research: methodological and ethical insights from the Good Starts Study. Journal of Refugee Studies 28(2): 238–257. DOI: 10.1093/jrs/feu017.

49.

McNevin

Missbach

(2018) Luxury limbo: temporal techniques of border control and the humanitarianisation of waiting. International Journal of Migration and Border Studies 4(1-2): 12–34. DOI: 10.1504/IJMBS.2018.091222.

50.

McTaggart

(1908) The unreality of time. Mind: 457–474.

51.

Missbach

(2015) Troubled Transit: Asylum Seekers Stuck in Indonesia. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

52.

Mitchell

(2023) Migration, memory, and the insurgent temporalities of sanctuary. Geografiska Annaler - Series B: Human Geography 105(2): 179–192.

53.

Mountz

(2011) Where asylum-seekers wait: feminist counter-topographies of sites between states. Gender, Place & Culture 18(3): 381–399. DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2011.566370.

54.

Mueller-Hirth

Oyola

(eds) (2018) Time and Temporality in Transitional and Post-Conflict Societies. London: Routledge.

55.

Munn

(1992) The cultural anthropology of time: a critical essay. Annual Review of Anthropology 21(1): 93–123. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.000521.

56.

Pannenberg

(2005) Eternity, time, and space. Zygon 40(1): 97–106. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2005.00647.x.

57.

Peisker

Tilbury

(2003) “Active” and “passive” resettlement: the influence of support services and refugees’ own resources on resettlement style. International Migration 41(5): 61–91. DOI: 10.1111/j.0020-7985.2003.00261.x.

58.

Redclift

(2017) The demobilization of diaspora: history, memory and ‘latent identity. Global Networks 17(4): 500–517. DOI: 10.1111/glob.12150.

59.

Roberts

(2019) Ongoing mobility trajectories: Lived experiences of global migration. Singapore: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3164-0.

60.

Roberts

(2021) His visa is made of rubber’: tactics, risk and temporary moorings under conditions of multi-stage migration to Australia. Social & Cultural Geography 22(3): 319–338. DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2019.1584826.

61.

Robertson

(2014) Time and temporary migration: the case of temporary graduate workers and working holiday makers in Australia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40(12): 1915–1933. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2013.876896.

62.

Robertson

(2020) Suspending, settling, sponsoring: the intimate chronomobilities of young Asian migrants in Australia. Global Networks 20(4): 677–696. DOI: 10.1111/glob.12291.

63.

Rotter

(2010) ‘Hanging In-Between’: Experiences of Waiting among Asylum Seekers Living in Glasgow [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Edinburgh]. http://hdl.handle.net/1842/5839.

64.

Rotter

(2016) Waiting in the asylum determination process: just an empty interlude? Time & Society 25(1): 80–101. DOI: 10.1177/0961463X15613654.

65.

Rowell

Gustafsson

Clemente

(2016) How institutions matter “in time”: the temporal structures of practices and their effects on practice reproduction How Institutions Matter!. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X201600048A010.

66.

Sagbakken

Bregård

Varvin

(2020) The past, the present, and the future: a qualitative study exploring how refugees’ experience of time influences their mental health and well-being. Frontiers in Sociology 5: 46, Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2020.00046/full (accessed 10 July 2024).

67.

Sanyal

(2012) Refugees and the city: An urban discussion. Geography Compass 6(11): 633–644. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12010.

68.

Simich

Beiser

Mawani

(2003) Social support and the significance of shared experience in refugee migration and resettlement. Western Journal of Nursing Research 25(7): 872–891.

69.

Smith

(1998) Transnationalism from below. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

70.

Stein

B. N.

(1981) Part VI: Resources: The refugee experience: Defining the parameters of a field of study. International Migration Review 15(1–2): 320–330.

71.

Steineck

(2019) Temporality Critical Terms in Futures Studies. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 299–306. https://link-springer-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-28987-4_46.

72.

Suisky

(2009) Newton and Leibniz on time, space and forces Euler as Physicist. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 33–64.

73.

Sumner

(1999) The significance of Zera Yacob’s philosophy. Ultimate Reality and Meaning 22(3): 172–188.

74.

Taylor

(2014) The diasporic pursuit of home and identity: dynamic Punjabi transnationalism. The Sociological Review 62(2): 276–294. DOI: 10.1111/1467-954X.12155.

75.

Tazzioli

(2018) The temporal borders of asylum. Temporality of control in the EU border regime. Political Geography 64: 13–22. https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/26979/.

76.

Tefera

(2021) Pre‐arrival temporalities of displacement in refugee migration: the case of resettled Ethiopian refugees in Australia. Population, Space and Place 27(4): e2417. DOI: 10.1002/psp.2417.

77.

Tefera

Gamlen

(2023) Temporal logics in urban place-making: the case of refugee-background Ethiopians in Australia. Urban Geography 44: 243–261. DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2021.1975993.

78.

Thrift

(1977) Time and theory in human geography: part II. Progress in Geography 1(3): 413–457. DOI: 10.1177/030913257700100304.

79.

Triandafyllidou

(2022) Temporary migration: category of analysis or category of practice? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48(16): 3847–3859. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2022.2028350.

80.

Turnbull

(2016) Stuck in the middle’: waiting and uncertainty in immigration detention. Time & Society 25(1): 61–79. DOI: 10.1177/0961463X15604518.

81.

Turner

(2015) ‘We wait for miracles’: ideas of hope and future among clandestine Burundian refugees in Nairobi Ethnographies of Uncertainty in Africa. Berlin: Springer, 173–191. https://link-springer-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/chapter/10.1057/9781137350831_9.

82.

Vertovec

(ed) (2015) Diversities Old and New: Migration and Socio-Spatial Patterns in New York, Singapore and Johannesburg. Berlin: Springer.

83.

Vidal

Musset

(eds) (2016) Waiting Territories in the Americas: Life in the Intervals of Migration and Urban Transit. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

84.

Willen

(2007) Exploring “illegal” and “irregular” migrants’ lived experiences of law and state power. International Migration 45(3): 2–7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2435.2007.00408.x.

85.

Wilson

(2004) Four days and a breakfast: time, space and literacy/ies in the prison community Spatializing Literacy Research and Practice. Lausanne: Peter Lang, 67–90.

86.

Zerubavel

(1985) Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Press.