Aprioristic versus grounded approaches

One of the greatest methodological issues in research about African presence in China has been allowing theory to determine the questions asked, the outcomes of research, and the representation of research subjects. The conceptual and methodological choices taken by the aforementioned scholars bring a tension between two distinct forms of knowledge production in qualitative research in social sciences to the fore: the tension between the production of knowledge through the deployment of ready-made hypotheses or presuppositions (derived from pre-established theoretical frameworks) and then tested through a case-study; and the development of empirically and locally (e.g. eth-nographically) based explanations that may (or may not) connect with existing literatures, and may (or may not) contribute to the formulation of new theoretical frameworks. In short, the tension between what I call ‘aprioristic’ and ‘grounded’ approaches.

Research stemming from the presupposition that Africans in China are ‘immigrants’ (or carriers of globalisation, for that matter) is a good example of what I mean by ‘aprioristic approach’. This way of producing knowledge is a legacy of methodological approaches — rife in social sciences — that tend to take the existence of social phenomena for granted, and then set out to list, identify, and describe the features that best adhere to certain expectations.Within this approach, fieldwork is often merely an attempt to fit the phenomenon within the existing frames of a particular field, area of study, or theory. I argue that this approach leaves little (or no) room for the empirical to challenge the theoretical. In the case of Africans in Guangzhou, prioritising the engagement with existing theoretical frameworks not only hampers the search for a better understanding/explanation of the multiple types of movement/emplacement taking place but, more importantly, conceals how these may have the potential to rework social relations and challenge (mis) representations.

In a ‘grounded approach’, however, theoretical insights and frameworks are formulated as a final outcome of critical reflection on the data emerging from the case study, instead of the other way around (Alasuutari, 1996). A grounded approach, as

I conceptualise it here, emerges from the complex interplay of fieldwork and theoretically informed perspectives. As should be evident by now, this is the choice I made in this project.The insights, descriptions, and terms that I presented throughout this book, emerged out of an inductive approach in which a dialectical exchange between empirical observations and theory took place. Rather than setting out to prove a theory (or to find evidence to engage with existing literature), my intention was to assess to what extent the lived experiences of people inform and/or challenge theoretical assumptions and presuppositions.

In this way, my insights are intended to provide alternative viewpoints on the case, rather than be exhaustive and definitive explanations. So, while I did not start this research with a hypothesis/presupposition to be proven (or satisfied), I did set out to do fieldwork informed by certain assumptions and theoretical notions. The main assumption — that stemmed from my years living in China prior to embarking on this project and from a literature review I produced early on — was that rather than immigrating to China, Africans were transnational traders who constantly moved back and forth in circuits of trade, and that their journeys and intentions were being misrepresented. However, through sustained contact with a number of individuals in Guangzhou, and by participating, to varying degrees, in their lives and activities, I realised that the case study was more complex than what I had previously imagined, and that my assumptions and theoretical notions were somewhat inadequate. Indeed, through the interplay between old/new theoretical notions and empirical observation that takes place in a grounded approach, the observer’s perspective evolves and expands, and the field of possibilities to make better sense of the specifics of a case study widens. In the case of Africans in Guangzhou, this approach revealed a different picture: one in which notions like ‘immigration’ and ‘enclave’, for instance, lack empirical support and, perhaps more importantly, one in which focusing on multiple trajectories, patterns of movement, and modes of emplacement contributes to a better description of the lived experiences of individuals. In short, I contend that insights produced by a grounded approach are more likely to uncover the specific local and historical features of a sociocultural formation, and provide viewpoints that can further the understanding of the complexities of contemporary transnational movement.

It is from the basis of this ‘grounded approach’ (and the multiple rationales, trajectories, and emplacements it highlights) that I argue that a more comprehensive understanding of African presence in Guangzhou can emerge from thinking in terms of‘African transnational mobilities (converging) in China’, rather than in terms of‘African immigration to China’. This distinction is not only a semantic one. For, as noted above, depending on the perspective a researcher takes (the questions s/he asks), the lived experiences of individuals, and their rationales for movement, are represented differently.

Thinking in terms of African mobilities moves beyond the categories of (im)migration and trade, and allows for a plethora of other types of movement (including exploration, adventure, travel, itinerancy, and even tourism and nomadism) to be considered (de Bruijn et ah, 2001). However, as I have shown throughout this book, the geographies of transnational mobility register more than human movement alone. Non-human and non-material things such as ideas, values, and aspirations can move, impact on locales, and transform as a result of the movement of people (de Bruijn et al., 2001). Hence, focusing on African mobilities not only requires the tracing of human forms of mobility in their transnational expansion out of Africa and into Asia, but also the tracing of the continuities implicated in the mobility of (non-human/non-material) forms (e.g. ideas, values, aspirations, and forms of organisation).

Hence, to better understand the multiple forms of mobility that characterise the present transnational conjuncture (the backdrop of African presence in China), we need to analyse these ‘forms of mobility’ concomitantly with what de Bruijn et al. (2001) call ‘mobility of forms’ — and the ways in which the interplay between both forms impacts on the lives of individuals. As I pointed out in Chapter 3, in this day and age, people on the move do not just leave their places behind carrying certain items to attempt to home themselves elsewhere, rather, they attempt to reproduce certain cultural forms as they journey to other places. The grassroots forms of organisation and representation (Chapter 3), and the emergence of a music scene (Chapter 4) can be thought of as examples of these mobile forms. Thus, throughout this chapter, I argue that within the logic of forms of mobility/ mobility of forms, it is possible to conceptualise the multiple (hybrid) African formations analysed in this book as ‘forms’ moving along the lines of transnational flows of trade, culture, aspirations, media representation, and geopolitics. The notion of‘mobility of forms’ highlights the existence of heterogeneous sociocultural formations that are in constant movement — much like the buoyant assemblages of relationships that I mentioned in Chapter 1. As they move, however, these forms generate a multiplicity of (dis)connections and (dis)embeddings and have the capacity to both transform locales and be transformed by the interplay of local, translocal, and transnational factors. I contend that bringing multiple forms of mobility (including immobility) to the fore (along with the mobility of forms) fosters and provides: more inclusive imaginings and conceptualisations about individuals on the move (that go beyond sedentaristic approaches and methodological nationalism); more nuanced and complex understandings about African presence in Guangzhou; and, ultimately, a better description of the specificity of the mobile (yet grounded) sociocultural formations emerging in the current transnational moment.

In order to mobilise these ideas in what follows, I first present a brief account of multiple forms of African mobility suggesting that African presence in Guangzhou needs to be framed as a continuation/expansion of trans-African forms of mobility. Following that, I claim that the forms of African mobility organising African presence in the city are best characterised by focusing on aspirational mobilities and entrepreneurial drives. After that, I present a review of how methodological nationalism has historically been a burden in theorisations about individuals on the move. I then suggest that as a whole, the multiple trajectories and emplacements in the city can be conceptualised under the umbrella term of an ‘entrepreneurial form’. Finally, I discuss how the multiple forms of mobility converging in Guangzhou need to be analysed concomitantly with a ‘mobility of forms’.