How can we categorise ‘nationality’ and ‘second generation’ in surveys without (re)producing stigmatisation?

Abstract Whilst reflexive migration studies have criticised the use of categories such as ‘nationality’ and ‘second generation’ in quantitative research, several gaps on how to develop reflexivity remain. In qualitative data, co-construction knowledge seems feasible during fieldwork, whereas deductive process research limits interactions is more at risk reproducing a ‘state thought’ . Through longitudinal database, LIVES-FORS cohort survey National Center Competence Research LIVES – Overcoming Vulnerability: Life Course Perspectives FORS Swiss Centre Expertise Social Sciences (herafter LCS), we engage this discussion provide some answers. The LCS an annual that, 2013, started following young adults born between 1988 1997 who grew up Switzerland. underlying hypothesis that migrants’ descendants access different resources (and often lack thereof) natives. paper, discuss both theoretical empirical challenges using generation’. We show fluidity subjectivity these categories. By changing definition category generation’, increased proportion ‘second-generation’ participants from 43 almost 62% sample. Looking across five waves survey, notice 2% unexplained variation first nationality mentioned by 31% missing values regarding birth which are indicators subjective well legal one. illustrate static neutral conceptions reproduce false stigmatised image migrant descendants. To avoid pitfalls suggest developing multilevel geographical comparisons consider effects time (age historical), wider range information order be precise, examine nationalities instead focusing traditional labour immigrants given country explore reasons for answers certain questions. Thus questionnaires should include flexibility possibilities details more-open questions sensitive issues about self. They developed through participative bottom-up fostering mixed methods.