Methodological Framework

Abstract

This chapter aims to shed light on the methodological framework employed in this interdisciplinary research. It presents the case study selection by outlining the differences and similarities in terms of contextual factors and legal and policy issues. This chapter concludes with a focus on the data sources used and the ethical considerations at the heart of this study.

This chapter aims to shed light on the methodological framework employed in this interdisciplinary research. It presents the case study selection by outlining the differences and similarities in terms of contextual factors and legal and policy issues. This chapter concludes with a focus on the data sources used and the ethical considerations at the heart of this study.

2.1 Interdisciplinary Research Design

This book combines international, European, and national law and implementation evaluation as part of empirical legal research studies¹ in order to answer the question of how the EU’s circular migration approach has been implemented and how this has affected the rights of migrant workers. It focuses on the process of implementation as an object of legal evaluation and not on the impact and effectiveness of the approach under investigation.² In line with that focus, the study first examines how the circular migration approach has been translated into policy and then traces the policy formulation process that has taken place at the EU level. Secondly, it focuses on how this policy is implemented at both the EU and national levels by analysing policy outputs: the activities established to execute the policy (e.g., laws, decisions, and so on). Finally, the study also examines the outcomes of the circular migration policy in order to assess the practical challenges that are related to the rights of migrant workers in the context of circular migration. Tracing the policy formulation and implementation thereof requires a three-level analysis: policy formulation at the EU (and national) level, policy outputs developed at the EU and national levels, and policy outcomes measured at the individual level (see Fig. 2.1).

Fig. 2.1

Three-level framework for analysis – formulation and implementation of EU’s circular migration approach through legal and policy channels. Source: Author’s own elaboration

As discussed, the circular migration approach at the EU level has been formulated very broadly, consisting of both legal and policy channels for implementation that also allows, to a certain extent, policy co-formulation from Member States at the national level. This occurs mainly through the policy formulation process within the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM), whereby countries can initiate circular migration projects. As a result of these two channels for implementing the circular migration policy, there are two main types of outputs that can be identified: legal instruments developed at the EU as well as at the national level and the policy instruments developed as part of the GAMM.

The legal outputs developed at the EU level require implementation, in most cases, at the national level within a margin of appreciation that is given to the Member States, which can additionally have the effect of reshaping these outputs. Furthermore, those cases where EU law has not been correctly transposed also need to be considered. In addition, the legal outputs developed at the national level, such as bilateral agreements, will also be examined in this study. Finally, different policy outputs – such as circular migration initiatives and bilateral social security agreements – can be identified as a result of Member States’ participation in the GAMM, such as for example in Mobility Partnerships, which are one of the ‘principle bilateral frameworks for facilitating policy dialogue and operational cooperation with partner countries’.³

In order to evaluate the implementation of the formulated policies and established outputs at both the EU and national levels, this study also examines a third level – the individual level – where the outcomes of circular migration policy can be assessed. Taking the policy outcomes into consideration makes it possible to analyse whether migrant workers benefit in practice from rights-based circular migration.

2.2 Comparative Case Study Approach

This study employs a comparative case study research design as part of the legal empirical research methodology. The case study approach is considered the most suitable because it allows for the developed policy outputs at the national level to be examined in their specific legal systems or contexts, and it also provides for a ‘detailed consideration of contextual factors’.⁴ Furthermore, by employing a comparative strategy to the case study approach, one can examine the differences in the transposition of the EU legal instruments that have a bearing on circular migration, the establishment of national instruments as part of the legal frameworks of each country, and the implementation of circular migration through the GAMM policy channels.

According to Yin, the case study method is ‘an empirical study that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident’.⁵ Another advantage of the case study method is that it is able to ‘test views directly in relation to phenomena as they unfold in practice’.⁶ It can be employed as an umbrella strategy for conducting research that is capable of utilising a range of different research methods and data sources.⁷

The selection of the case is the most critical step in undertaking any case study research.⁸ There are single case studies that are typically used for anthropological studies and multiple case studies that are more often used in the ambit of sociological research.⁹ This book is focused on a multiple-case study comparison, employing a ‘most similar system’ design,¹⁰ which is a method that focuses the analysis on comparable cases within the same geographical-cultural area and allows identification of factors that help understand differences in outcomes.

Comparative legal enquiries usually consist of three major steps: a selection of what is to be compared, a description of the law and its context, and an analysis thereof.¹¹ The first step begins with a determination of the basis of comparison, containing the objects of comparative research and the sources that are consulted.¹² Even though researchers conducting comparative legal enquiries are generally advised to look for both similarities and differences¹³ at the selection stage, the researcher must strive to have at least a minimum similarity in order to provide a basis for the comparative analysis.¹⁴ Thus, selecting countries from the same legal family and which – in the context of this study – share a similar communist past, are part of the latest EU enlargement, are active in the Eastern Partnership, and attract migrants from the same regions were among the criteria that were used to choose the countries for the purposes of this case study. These common characteristics thereby allow the researcher to account for whether similar laws and policies have similar or different outcomes when they are applied in the same contexts.

The next section describes the case selection in greater detail. It shows that the two countries analysed in this study share common characteristics thus allowing the researcher to test the findings derived from the country comparisons. Even if the results from this study cannot be formally generalised in the end, it follows that purely descriptive case studies still have the potential of contributing to the ‘process of knowledge accumulation’ in the field of legal empirical research and can ‘certainly be of value in this process and has often helped cut a path toward scientific innovation’.¹⁵

2.2.1 Case Study Selection: Bulgaria and Poland

Bulgaria and Poland have been selected from the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries as the two cases that will be compared in this study. They share similarities and differences which, as mentioned above, makes them useful subjects for comparative research. Firstly, due to their geographical proximity and their ethnic and historical ties, both countries attract migrants from the former Soviet Union republics that are situated in the Eastern European neighbourhood as well as from Russia. Therefore, this case selection allows the study to focus geographically on the implementation of the EU’s circular migration approach with regard to the Eastern Partnership countries. Secondly, they share similar contextual factors: they are former communist countries with some experience in temporary migration; they are new EU Member States with a geopolitical interest in the Eastern Partnership; and, they participate in the GAMM instruments with these countries. Finally, they diverge in their legal and policy contexts; both experienced different EU accession processes, which resulted in distinctive national migration legislation and differences in the transposition of relevant EU legislation.

2.2.1.1 Contextual Factors: Similarities and Differences

Bulgaria and Poland share a similar communist history of immigration when inward and outward flows were heavily controlled until 1989. Temporary labour migration took place mainly within the Soviet bloc or according to bilateral agreements with other Soviet republics. Poland had a continuous excess of labour supply and Poles were involved in regular migration related to temporary employment in neighbouring Czechoslovakia and Hungary, as well as engaged in petty trade conducted under the guise of tourism. This was a type of circular mobility that became a widespread phenomenon in the 1980s and which was known as ‘incomplete migration’.¹⁶ Later, in the 1990s, this type of movement was referred to as ‘shuttle mobility’ and began taking place from former Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.

Temporary migration opportunities were also present in communist Bulgaria. The country concluded bilateral agreements with other socialist countries for the exchange of workers. For example, in the 1980s, many Bulgarians worked in the construction and timber industries of the Komi Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic under an exchange agreement signed with the Soviet Union. Furthermore, some Vietnamese construction workers were sent to Bulgaria under agreements that were concluded in the 1980s.

Additionally, both Bulgaria and Poland are slowly evolving from countries of emigration and transit to new countries of immigration. As such, in both countries foreign-born individuals comprise 2 per cent of the population.¹⁷ As of 1 January 2018, there are 156,505 foreign-born residents in Bulgaria (both EU and non-EU migrants) and 695,850 in Poland.¹⁸ However, it should be stressed that this is an estimated number and in the case of Poland, for instance, excludes migrants working on a visa. Therefore, these numbers are used only for indicative purposes.

However, the two countries differ with regard to the main countries of origin of immigrants. In Bulgaria, according to the latest OECD data from 2017, the main countries of origin of non-EU country newcomers are Turkey, Russia, Syria, and Ukraine.¹⁹ In Poland, as of 2017, Ukrainians formed more than 60 per cent of the total foreigner population, followed by immigrants from Belarus, China, and India.²⁰ Until 2016, Russians were the largest group of third-country nationals with first residence permits in Bulgaria while, in the past couple of years, Ukrainians have emerged as the third-largest group (see Table 2.1).²¹ In Poland, Ukrainians are in the majority, followed by Belarusians as the second-largest group; Russians were in the top five until 2016 (see Table 2.2).

Table 2.1 Top five of first residence permits in Bulgaria per country of citizenship (2015–2018). Source: Eurostat

Table 2.2 Top five of first residence permits in Poland per country of citizenship (2015–2018). Source: Eurostat

The reasons for immigration of the first permit holders also differ between the two countries. Bulgaria attracts mainly family migration, as well as migrants for other purposes such as pensioners and refugees; Poland attracts primarily migration for employment-related reasons (see Figs. 2.2 and 2.3). A total of 87.4 per cent of the permits issued in Poland in 2017 were related to employment, compared to 16.6 per cent in Bulgaria.²² Conversely, in 2017, family reunion permits accounted for 33.0 per cent in Bulgaria compared to 0.5 per cent in Poland.²³ Finally, it should be underlined that at the end of 2017, Poland issued the highest number of first residence permits in the EU (683,000).²⁴

Fig. 2.2

First permits by reason, Bulgaria (2016–2018). Source: Eurostat

Fig. 2.3

First permits by reason, Poland (2015–2018). Source: Eurostat

2.2.1.2 Legal and Policy Context: Similarities and Differences

Both countries share certain similarities that allow for a basis of comparison in legal and policy terms (see Table 2.3). They are both former communist countries, have common historical and cultural links, and are both new Member States from the fifth EU enlargement (Poland acceded to the EU in 2004 and Bulgaria acceded to the EU in 2007). Furthermore, both countries adhere to the civil law legal tradition, but remnants of their former socialist legal tradition are still present in their respective legal frameworks.²⁵

Table 2.3 Similarities and differences in the legal and policy context of Bulgaria and Poland. Source: Author’s own elaboration

As new Member States, Poland and Bulgaria were obliged to apply all of the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) legal instruments without the possibility of opting out. Therefore all these instruments, including those incorporating circular migration elements, had to be implemented at the national level. Also, both countries have chosen to participate in Mobility Partnerships with Eastern Partnership countries.²⁶

However, neither Bulgaria nor Poland acceded to the ILO Migration for Employment Convention (No. 97),²⁷ ILO Migrant Workers Convention (No. 143)²⁸ and International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW)²⁹ that contain underlying principles for national laws and regulations concerning labour migration and the protection of migrant workers.³⁰ They are also among the instruments forming part of the study’s rights-based benchmark framework for assessment of circular migration policies.³¹

Bulgaria and Poland both underwent a transition from communism to democracy and when they started their accession periods, the EU rules ‘had to compete with a layer of old regulations inherited from the communist regimes’.³² These processes are part of the legal context of both countries and must naturally be taken into consideration in the comparative case study analysis. However, even though both countries are new EU Member States, they had different EU accession periods, which resulted in distinctive national migration legislation and different transposition of EU legislation.

Moreover, the EU migration policy is an area of shared competence and Member States have a certain discretion, which is an important part of the legal context and must therefore also be considered. As a result, Poland, for example, has developed a scheme that facilitates circular migration through its national legislation and under the aegis of the GAMM, whilst Bulgaria promotes this type of migration on the basis of bilateral agreements with third countries. Another difference in the policy contexts is that Poland has become a member of the Schengen area and fully applies the Schengen acquis. Bulgaria, however, is still a candidate country and is awaiting the political approval that is required in order to become a member of the Schengen area.

In order to examine the challenges that are related to migrant workers’ rights in the context of circular migration and ensure comparability of the data, one should focus on migrants with similar characteristics. Since the geographical focus of the study is on migrants circulating from the Eastern neighbourhood countries to the EU, the first logical step is to determine the largest immigrant groups in Bulgaria and Poland, respectively. According to the most recent available data, in the case of Bulgaria, the main countries of origin of first residence permits holders from the Eastern neighbourhood countries are Russia and Ukraine. In the case of Poland, these are Ukraine followed by Belarus, Moldova, and Russia (see Table 2.2).

Apart from being the largest immigrant group granted first residence permits in the EU 28,³³ Ukrainians are, as the data show, among the largest immigrant groups from the Eastern Partnership countries in both Poland and Bulgaria; therefore it is logical to identify them as one of the immigrant groups suitable for the aims of this research. Russians are the largest immigrant group in Bulgaria, and Russia was in the top five countries of origin of immigrants in Poland in 2015 and 2018. Furthermore, Russians are in the top ten of immigrant groups granted first residence permits in the EU 28.³⁴ Even though Russia is not one of the Eastern Partnership countries, it is an important partner in the external dimension of EU migration policy and more specifically within the context of the GAMM (at least until the annexation of Crimea, when all migration-related EU–Russian dialogues were suspended). Therefore, Russians are identified as the second suitable group for the purposes of ascertaining the research aims of this study.

2.2.2 Data Sources

The comparative case study approach is carried out using legal and policy sources as well as qualitative data gathered from semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The legal and policy sources – in combination with semi-structured interviews with relevant policy actors – are mainly used for the analysis of the formulation and implementation of the EU’s circular migration approach through the established outputs at both the EU and the national levels. The semi-structured interviews are used to fill gaps in the interpretation and implementation of legal and policy sources when analysing both the EU’s approach and national instruments facilitating circular migration. The aim of the focus groups is to examine the perceptions of migrant workers and thus the outcomes at the individual level.

2.2.2.1 Legal Sources

This study is based on an analysis of primary and secondary European legislation: EU treaties, EU regulations, and EU legal migration directives as well as national legal acts on foreigners and labour migration. Universal and regional human rights instruments are also used to construct a rights-based analytical framework that supports the assessment of the developed circular migration policies.³⁵ Furthermore, national legal acts are analysed to track the implementation of the EU’s approach to circular migration at the national level. This includes taking stock of the transposition of EU directives in the area of legal migration and implementation of other sources of EU law (e.g. on visa and social security matters) that incorporate elements of circular migration into the national laws on foreigners, migration, and employment in Bulgaria and Poland, respectively. The case law of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has also served as relevant legal source. However, no national court cases were identified as having a direct bearing to the topic of circular migration. An important caveat to keep in mind is that the review of national court cases has not been exhaustive due to language barriers and time limitations. The legal sources have been updated to reflect any important amendments that have occurred up to September 2019.

2.2.2.2 Policy and Academic Sources

Policy documents at the international, European, and national levels in Bulgaria, Poland, and the Eastern Partnership countries that participate in Mobility Partnerships are also used as data sources. Firstly, EU policy sources such as the Communications of the European Commission are used to conceptualise the term circular migration and trace its two-fold implementation at the EU level. Secondly, data consisting of academic publications and NGO reports are employed in order to complement the conceptualisation of the EU’s approach to circular migration that is based on EU legal and policy data sources. This concept has attracted considerable scholarly and policy attention in the years following its introduction, and these data sources are able to provide valuable insights into the understanding of its meaning, its key conceptual elements, and the policy routes to its implementation.

Policy and academic literature³⁶ on the topic is also used to trace the implementation of the EU’s approach. The reports of Brussels-based NGOs and think tanks provide valuable insight into the problems associated with the concept.³⁷ Furthermore, the reports produced by the European Migration Network and the European Training Foundation are among the limited data sources that provide useful insights into the challenges related to the concept’s implementation at the national level.³⁸

Most of the EU-related documents necessary for this study are available online through the websites of EU institutions and the European Migration Network. The only issue with regards to EU documents is securing access to the so-called scoreboards that help further operationalise the annexes of the Mobility Partnerships, listing – among other things – the state of play of the different projects, the leading partners, and their budgets. The scoreboards were accessed through official requests for information that were filed to the European Commission or through requests to experts from the respective national administrations. The book contains information retrieved through the latest available scoreboards obtained in September 2019. Several official requests for information were filed with the Bulgarian and Polish administrations in order to access statistical data related to the implementation of different instruments analysed in this study.

2.2.2.3 Semi-structured Interviews

In order to complement the information on the implementation of the EU’s circular migration approach that was gathered through legal and policy sources, this research also employed in-depth interviews with policymakers and NGOs at the EU and national levels in Bulgaria, Poland, and some of the Eastern Partnership countries participating in Mobility Partnerships. This method is extensively used in empirical legal research because interviews are an effective means of gathering data on other individuals’ perceptions and views as well as on the reasoning behind the responses.³⁹ The study employs semi-structured in-depth interviews, allowing for some set questions formulated on the basis of the analysis of the other data sources but also leaving open-ended questions that enable the interviewees to reflect on the topic on the basis of their experience and understandings.⁴⁰

The main challenge in relation to interviewing is how to avoid biases from both the interviewer and interviewee.⁴¹ Therefore, different authors recommend the use of various techniques in order to ensure researchers maintain the reliability and validity of their research. Some techniques used in this research were: keeping focus on the core questions and themes of the interview guide; remaining relevant and directed and thus maintaining control; avoiding misleading questions or socially acceptable bias, as well as value judgements, in order to maintain objectivity; and ensuring that the interviewee had correctly understood the questions and terms used.⁴² Additionally, the interview guide was piloted in the first phase of the field research in 2013.

Several semi-structured interview guides were used: one for policymakers and stakeholders at the EU and national levels who were engaged in the formulation or implementation of the EU’s circular migration approach and several specific guides for interviews with national experts working in one of the six specific policy areas under consideration. In a few cases, additional semi-structured guides were used when a given policy actor was approached with a specific set of questions for a second interview, with the aim of gathering additional information.

Firstly, the interview method was used to provide insight into policy formulation at the EU level. Several EU institutions are involved in policy formulation of the circular migration concept. However, given the complicated legislative and decision-making process at the EU level, it is not always easy to identify the people who are involved in the development of the concept. Furthermore, since the concept was introduced more than 10 years ago, some of the individuals have either transferred to another Directorate General of the European Commission or left their employment at the EU institutions altogether. Therefore, the only way to create a sample was to use a snowball method.⁴³ The first interview for this research was carried out at the Centre for European Policy Studies in 2013 and was used as an entry point in the ‘circular migration policy-making world’.⁴⁴

Thus, by asking every respondent to recommend other potential interviewees, 18 initial interviews were conducted in the period 2013–2014 with officials from EU institutions and representatives of Brussels-based NGOs and think tanks (see Annex I). These interviews allowed the researcher to acquire an initial understanding of the concept and its use. This phase also provided the author with the opportunity to pilot the developed semi-structured interview guide, which was adjusted slightly following the initial interviews. During a secondment at one of the headquarters of International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) throughout the period between January–March 2017, an additional round of ten interviews with representatives of this international organisation, as well as other relevant policy actors from the Eastern Partnership countries, were conducted (see Annex I). Additionally, during the last phase of writing this study, two more interviews with European Commission officials were conducted.

Secondly, in order to gain an understanding of how policy formulation is transformed into policy outputs, a total of 45 (23 in Bulgaria and 22 in Poland) interviews with national stakeholders from the relevant authorities in Bulgaria and Poland, as well as NGO representatives, were conducted on the basis of snowball sampling (see Annexes II and III). These interviews were of crucial importance for grasping the co-formulation and implementation of the circular migration approach that has been developed at the national level since very often the policies or legal frameworks that are developed at the national level do not explicitly refer to the term ‘circular migration’. The interviews with policymakers also constituted a source of information about the attitudes toward this approach and provided an explanation of some of the policy decisions in this regard. Finally, interviews with lawyers and national experts from academia, NGOs, and think tanks were conducted to ascertain a critical view of the implementation (or lack thereof) of the circular migration approach and the consequences on the rights of the migrant workers (see Annexes II and III).

2.2.2.4 Focus Groups

The focus group (or group interview) entails a collective interview process.⁴⁵ Its purpose is to understand how people think or feel about a certain issue, to gather opinions,⁴⁶ and provide opportunities for the participants to share their experiences.⁴⁷ There are several reasons why focus groups were chosen as a method for examining the policy outcomes at the individual level rather than by recourse to individual interviews. First, the main feature distinguishing focus groups from individual interviews is that they produce what is referred to as ‘interactive data’.⁴⁸ Focus groups are a unique method because they allow data to be gathered from both the individual and from the individual as part of a group.⁴⁹ This process is driven by the communication between participants with specific shared characteristics that relate to the topic of the focus group which allows the research to ascertain a richer knowledge of the subject that is being discussed because the topics and opinions ‘unfold and are negotiated in the focus group’s discussion’.⁵⁰ It also provides the opportunity for direct comparisons among the experiences and views of the participants, rather than analysing differences of the interviewees on the basis of aggregated individual data.⁵¹

Second, this method is often used to determine an individual’s reaction to the introduction of a policy or a policy change that affects a population in order to provide a policy evaluation.⁵² Focus groups were therefore considered to be a suitable method for the purposes of this research because they bring the perspective of migrants on the challenges related to their circulation and rights in the six policy areas identified as pertinent to circular migration on the basis of group interactions. Thus, this method allows for an examination of policy outcomes at the individual level. Third, focus groups complement the other methods used in this research and build on the findings derived from the legal and policy analysis and the data gathered from the interviews with policymakers, thus allowing for triangulation by adding ‘the human element of the voices of multiple subjects’.⁵³

Finally, there were certain pragmatic considerations as a result of this method. The combination of focus groups with interviews ‘has the advantage of getting reactions from a relatively wide range of participants in a relatively short time’.⁵⁴ Therefore, focus groups were considered to be an efficient research method, especially given the limited duration of the periods of field research that were possible under this study.

Some of the critiques of the use of focus groups include the argument that focus group participants could make up the answers, that the dominant participants could influence the results, and that this method may produce unreliable and trivial results.⁵⁵ As with any other research methods, the reliability question and the quality of the results produced concerns the sampling approach and the recruitment strategy used as well as the number and size of the groups. The justification of all the steps that were taken in designing this research is presented below. Another important factor for the successful implementation of the focus groups concerns the role and skills of the moderator, who in this study served as ‘a levelling force that allows participants to reflect on various arguments without pressure’.⁵⁶ In order to prevent participants from fabricating answers, the research employed a strategy of presenting, in detail, the rules of the method and asking additional questions during the interviewing process in order to eliminate any doubt. Furthermore, these problems are considered minimised when multiple strategies of inquiry are employed.⁵⁷

The aim of the focus group is to gather the opinions of individuals who have something in common. The first such feature of migrants that needs to be considered is their country of origin. As already mentioned, Ukraine and Russia were identified as the most suitable countries of origin with regards to this study’s aim. Another important feature that the focus group participants had to share was being economically active in line with the definition adopted by this study. As the respective national laws of Poland and Bulgaria do not refer to a ‘circular migrant status’, the aim was to select participants who are labour migrants and employed workers. Focus groups need to be homogeneous, but there must also be sufficient variation therein.⁵⁸ Therefore, the focus groups that were conducted with Ukrainians and Russians included both workers in low-skilled (e.g. seasonal labour) and highly-skilled occupations (e.g., Blue Card holders, national permit holders). They also included migrants who had recently retired. This group of participants offered a perspective on the challenges related to pension rights that migrants who are still in employment cannot provide. Therefore, their participation in the focus group was considered important.

Additionally, one of the characteristics of circular migrants is that they circulate repeatedly between their countries of origin and destination. Therefore, the participants recruited for the focus groups had to have returned at least once to their country of origin and have come back to Bulgaria or Poland. Furthermore, since circular migration in the EU context is not exclusively limited to temporary stays and does not exclude circular migration of permanently settled migrants, migrants with either temporary or permanent status were considered suitable for participation in the focus groups.

Thus the selection criteria for the focus groups included: country of origin (Russia and Ukraine); legal status (temporary and permanent residence permit holders); economic status (employed economic migrants and retirees); and, when possible, with circular migration experience (returning to the country of origin for work-related reasons, e.g. return for work under a temporary contract in the country of origin or renewal of documents related to work permits /residence permits).

Potential focus group participants were recruited in several different Bulgarian and Polish cities on the basis of snowball sampling, which is an approach that helps the researcher to locate ‘information-rich key informants’ or events that serve as a starting point for the development of the sample.⁵⁹ The strategies for finding potential participants included identification of informants from the immigrant communities on the basis of meetings with different stakeholders. The informants were asked to think of migrant workers who fit the focus group profile and also distribute a brochure among their community or network. Sometimes informants directly contacted the researcher with suggestions for potential participants and in other cases participants contacted the researcher directly.

Among the informants in Bulgaria were representatives of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and its Integration Offices in Sofia and Bourgas, representatives of the Bulgarian Red Cross and NGOs working in Varna, the network of the ‘Multi Kulti Collective Association’, contacts received from interviewees, and personal contacts. One member of the ‘Multi Kulti Collective Association’ supported the recruitment process of focus group participants in Bulgaria. The recruitment strategy for Russian migrants included contacting Russian restaurants in Sofia, the Russian Culture Centre, and the Russian Embassy, among others, as well as all shops from the Russian retailer Berizoka. Ukrainians were recruited through Facebook groups, the Ukrainian association Matti Di, and other informal channels. An information brochure was prepared in line with the developed ethics self-assessment procedure (see Sect. 2.3), which was translated into Ukrainian and Russian and distributed among more than 65 different informants and 17 Facebook groups.

The recruitment process in Poland followed the same strategy. The only difference was that the recruitment of potential focus group participants was supported by the network of interviewers and scholars working at the Centre for Migration Research in Warsaw. At the time of the field research in the period from October–December 2016, the Centre was conducting a survey among Ukrainians in Poland and some focus group participants were recruited through this pool of migrants, adhering to the ethical standards of the Centre’s survey. In addition, one of the Centre’s interviewers served as a focus group recruiter in the Ukrainian and Russian communities in Warsaw. Representatives of NGOs providing support to migrants in Warsaw were among the informants for this study. Finally, the prepared information brochure was distributed through the Russian and Ukrainian churches in Warsaw, the Russian Cultural Centre Ośrodek rosyjskiej kultury, several Russian restaurants, more than 14 Facebook groups, and 12 vk.com groups.

The recruitment of Blue Card holders was organised in a slightly different manner. It required the identification of companies employing Blue Card holders from the Eastern Partnership countries and Russia. Based on information obtained from informants in Bulgaria, it became clear that the Blue Card Directive was used primarily by IT companies. It took more than 2 months of targeted attempts to identify a company that was willing to give access to its employees for the sake of conducting several focus groups. After the field research in Bulgaria was completed, the Bulgarian IT company facilitated access to a Polish enterprise that recruited migrants through the Blue Card mechanism.

The recruitment period lasted 3 months in both countries. In Bulgaria, even though Ukrainians were the smaller immigrant group compared to Russians, they were easier to find and, furthermore, were eager to participate in the study. Finding Russian migrants willing to take part in the focus groups turned out to be a great challenge in both countries. Despite the broad network of informants used to recruit Russian participants, they were often not interested in participating or did not match the required profile. Most of the Russians who agreed to participate were highly-skilled which, according to the study’s informants, matches the general profile of Russian migrants in these two countries.

Furthermore, the initial profile that was envisaged in the research design had to be adapted several times. In Bulgaria it was extremely difficult to find ‘true’ labour migrants who had an employment contract and came to work as employed persons. Most of the migrants reached were students, businessmen, or were in the country through family reunification. In addition, it was impossible to find migrant workers circulating voluntarily between Bulgaria and their country of origin. There is, however, a particular reason for that, which is presented in Chap. 6. Voluntary circular migration seemed to be a typical feature only for students and businessmen. Thus, the final sample for the focus groups in Bulgaria had to be broadened and it ultimately included labour migrants as well as family migrants and migrants with registered companies. Some of them had circulated; some of them did not have this experience. In Poland, the biggest challenge encountered, apart from recruiting Russian migrants, was finding migrants working legally; it emerged that many migrant workers coming through the Polish simplified procedure (referred to as the Oświadczenie procedure in this study) entered the country legally but were working irregularly without any employment contract.

Initially the scope of the study’s research design included focus groups with seasonal workers. According to the assessment of the Ethics Advisory Body presented below, only legal migrants could be interviewed for the purposes of this study. However, it was impossible, in both Bulgaria and Poland, to find any seasonal workers who were working legally at the time of the field research in the second half of 2016. Furthermore, these types of workers were engaged in different sectors in the countries chosen for case studies; in Bulgaria they worked primarily in tourism and in Poland they worked mainly in agriculture. This required an additional recruitment strategy and an extended field research period that did not fit the study’s timeline. Therefore, seasonal workers were outside the scope of the focus groups. To compensate for this empirical gap, additional interviews with employers who recruit seasonal workers were conducted in both Poland and Bulgaria.

A total of nine focus groups were conducted as part of this study in 2016: four focus groups in Bulgaria and five focus groups in Poland; four of the focus groups covered general labour migrants and the rest included only Blue Card holders (see Annex IV).

2.3 Ethical Considerations

This study employs interviews and focus groups with migrants to examine how EU and national legislation is implemented in practice and the challenges migrant workers face. Thus, the project includes human participation, particularly policy actors and migrants, and thus the use of personal data, including information relating to ethnicity.

As this study was part of the TRANSMIC project, its methodology had to be reviewed by an interdisciplinary Ethics Advisory Body (EAB) at Maastricht University. The EAB reviewed the procedure for recruiting participants for the interviews and the focus groups, the procedure for handling any sensitive or personal data collected, and the informed consent procedure. The research activities were designed to ensure respect for people and human dignity, fair distribution of research benefits and burden, and protect the values, rights, and interests of the research participants. In order to achieve this and following the assessment of the EAB, only migrants possessing legal status were recruited for the focus groups. The sampling excluded migrants who were not able to give informed written consent themselves or provide ways of evidencing both the informed consent and the understanding of the risks that the project could bring for them.

Information brochures were translated into Russian and Ukrainian and formed part of the invitation for the recruitment of participants for the focus groups. Migrants gave informed consent orally during the recruitment phase. On the day of the focus group, participants received an informed consent form in a language and terms that were fully understandable to them, respectively in Bulgarian, English, Russian, or Ukrainian. The documents contained the aims, methods (how the data would be used in the analysis), duration, and implications of the research (including the impact on national and EU immigration policies), the nature of the participation (interviews) and any benefits, risks, or burdens that might be involved as a result.

The informed consent form and the detailed information brochures also explicitly stated that participation was voluntary and that each person had the right to refuse to participate and withdraw their participation or data at any time — without any consequences. The participants were informed about their right to ask questions and receive understandable answers before deciding. They were provided with the names and contact details of the principal researcher conducting the research, the supervisors of the principal researcher, and the EAB’s complaint procedure. The focus group participants gave their consent in writing by signing the informed consent form or by signing an informed consent list stating that they had been informed orally. The participants had their costs covered (transportation and food) and received a small remuneration in the form of a voucher.⁶⁰

Policymakers and other stakeholders were not covered by the informed consent procedure envisaged for the migrant workers. They were recruited through an invitation containing information about the project, its aims, focus, and the purpose of the interview. Once they agreed to participate (either via email or telephone), an interview was then scheduled. At the beginning of the interview the information about the project was repeated and they were asked whether they agreed to be recorded. Their consent was either registered or they were provided with a simplified informed consent form for stakeholders. Stakeholders could choose to be anonymous and most preferred this option.

The current research involved collecting and processing personal data through interviews and focus groups. The personal data included name, occupation, age, type of work or residence permit or both, citizenship, ethnicity, circular migration history, and telephone number or email. Ethnicity is sensitive personal data that was collected because some of the policies existing in the countries chosen for the case studies give preferential treatment to migrants with a particular ethnic background (for instance the ‘бесарабски българи’ [besarabski Bulgari] who are considered to be Ukrainians of Bulgarian origin), which is important with regards to the project findings.

During the informed consent procedure, both focus group participants and interviewees were informed that their data would be anonymised, protected during the project, and destroyed at the end of the research. The data was safely stored in password-protected storage devices and encrypted files on the Maastricht University servers. Only the principal researcher, the research assistants, and supervisors had access to the data. The procedures on destruction or re-use followed the guidelines that were given by the EAB.