Abstract:

It is recognized that technologies have had a major impact on migration trends by considerably diversifying and increasing migration opportunities (Codagnone & Kluzer, 2011). Moreover, migrants cannot be addressed without accounting for the technology dimension along with the traditionally studied professional, social, and economic dimensions. Technologies have also helped change our conception of migrants. According to Diminescu (2008), the new image of migrants is that of “connected migrants” whose mobilities are parts of one and the same movement. This new perception is made possible by technologies, which allow us to develop an “inclusive cosmopolitan point of view ‘both here and there,’ rather than an exclusive vision based on ‘either… or’” (free translation, Nedelcu, 2009, p. 171).

According to the current literature, technologies can mainly be used by migrants for two purposes: “bonding”, or the use of technologies to stay in contact with the society of origin, and “bridging”, which, conversely, consists of using technologies to integrate into the host society (Borkert, Cingolani & Premazzi, 2009). These two uses of technologies are not mutually exclusive. They are rather cumulative among migrants’ technological practices (Codagnone & Kluzer, 2011, p. 19), as migrants are likely to use technologies both to stay in contact with their family (bonding) as well as to search for information about their host country, such as its healthcare system (bridging). Although several studies have focused on permanent migrants’ use of technologies, the results are mixed on migrants’ technological skills. Some studies (e.g., Tripp, 2011) conclude that immigrants access and use technologies less than local populations, supporting the digital exclusion hypothesis. Unexpectedly, other studies (e.g., Codagnone & Kluzer, 2011) found the opposite. This may be attributable to immigrants’ need for immigrants to fully benefit from technolgy-enabled information and services in the host society and stay in touch with the source society.

While more research is needed regarding permanent migrants’ access and use of technologies, no study, to our knowledge, has focused on the specific case of temporary migrants. However, the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP) has attracted an increasing amount of South American and Caribbean temporary migrant workers in Canadian farms, since it began in 1966 (Horgan & Liinamaa, 2012). In 2009, they were 23,372 temporary migrant workers coming in Canada under the SAWP: 15 727 from Mexico, and 7 645 from the Caribbean (de Luna Villalon, 2012). Drawing on the literature on technologies and migration, the objective of this study was to better understand temporary farm workers’ access and use of technologies, both for bonding and bridging purposes. Using a mixed methodology, a questionnaire and two group interviews were conducted with 24 Mexican and Guatemalan temporary migrant workers from one farm in rural Quebec (Canada). While the results from such a small sample cannot be generalized, they show quite limited access and use of technologies by temporary migrants, with cell phones being predominantly used over the Internet. Furthermore, ethnicity (Mexican vs Guatemalan workers) and education (primary vs secondary education) seem to explain some of the variation in access and use of technologies among the participants. These results will be discussed in the light of the recent literature on digital inequalities.

Keywords:

Temporary migrant workers, access, use, technologies.