This paper emerges from Narrating Intergenerational Voices Project, a Research England International Science Partnership Fund (ODA) project that examined the inclusion of left-behind children of Filipina migrants in decision-making processes in two key aspects: migration and education decision-making. By definition, left-behind children (henceforth LBCs) are those “children raised in their home countries or in their countries of habitual residence, who have been left behind by adult migrants responsible for them. One or both parents may leave their children with family members, friends, the wider community, a child care institution, or on their own” (UNICEF Working Paper, n.d., p.1).​ It has been a norm in the Philippines, where the participating migrant mothers and LBCs are from, for families to be transnationalised, that is, to have one or more member of the family live in another country. According to Dominguez and Hall (2022), there are approximately 1.5 to 9 million Filipino children who are left-behind by a migrant parent. The upper limit of this estimate amounts to almost a tenth of the entire population of the Philippines. This reflects why migration and LBCs’ welfare are central in public conversations. But most importantly, this is a compelling number for why LBCs should have a bigger stake, or be included in migration processes.

The Narrating Intergenerational Voices project found that the inclusion of children in the areas of migration (e.g. whether to migrate or not) and education (e.g. school choice, location, type, etc.)  is asymmetrical. Children were found to have more stake in deciding over their education than in the migration of their parents. In the area of migration decision-making, LBCs were not often included in conversations and participated mostly as being ‘informed’ when the decision was made. Migrant parents justified this because of the ‘no-choice’ situation they find themselves in such as desperation to provide for their families and migration as the last resort. These practices align with findings from earlier research such as those by Ackers (2000), Mason (2000), and Bushin, (2009) which found that children’s voices in migration processes are often held secondary to adults. In contrast, in education-decision making, there are more spaces for children’s voices through some form of consultation and dialogue. It is also in this area where children tend to make strong opinions and cases for themselves, often also able to stand their ground. Consequently, parents respect their views and decisions regarding their education, although this remains heavily structured by children’s age. In light of these findings, this paper extends the analysis on the effects of these decision-making practices to LBCs by posing the research question below:

How do ex/inclusionary practices in decision-making related to migration and education impact the resilience of left-behind children?

This paper engages with the concept of resilience and adopts the definition of de los Reyes et al. (2022) in migration contexts. As such, LBCs’ resilience can be conceptualised as ‘a dynamic process and interaction between’ a left-behind child ‘and their ever-changing environment that uses available internal and external resources to produce positive outcomes in response to different contextual, environmental, and developmental challenges’ (p. 51). This definition is adapted because it recognises the multidimensional and multi-level construct of resilience, as well as the crucial role of internal and external resources in generating positive outcomes in response to challenges that emerge from children’s experience of their parent’s migration.  Overall, this paper aims to explore how inclusionary practices might support LBCs’ capacity to overcome adversities while their parent is away on the one hand; or how exclusionary practices might dampen their capacity to overcome domestic and school challenges on the other.

This study reports findings from the Narrating Intergenerational Voices project that engaged with migrant Filipina women across four countries and their left-behind children in the Philippines. It reports findings from a total of 32 interviews with: 1) 19 Filipina migrant mothers working as nurses in the United Kingdom (n=4), Australia (n=1), and as domestic workers in Hong Kong (n=9) and Singapore (n=5); and 2) their 12 left-behind children (12-18 years old). This study employed a narrative inquiry approach where participants’ written, spoken, and visual representations were sought in the process of sharing their stories (Punch & Oancea, 2014) of migration and the decision-making processes that took place in different milestones. During interviews, the participants shared their migration stories using a timeline that detailed various migration milestones that required decision-making and described children’s involvement in it. They were also asked to provide a photograph of an object that was meaningful in making sense of children’s voices in decision-making. In relation to resilience, the participants were asked about how the inclusion or exclusion of children in decision-making processes has affected their ability to cope with the challenges of migration both in school and at home. Both migrant women and left-behind children were asked to respond to this question. Data was analysed using NVivo and followed an inductive qualitative approach, commencing with the coding of transcripts and progressing iteratively through categorisation to identify key themes and concepts, consistent with the methodology outlined by Lichtman (2013). This comprehensive approach allowed for a nuanced exploration of the data, enriching the study's findings and contributing to a deeper understanding of LBCs’ resilience.

This study found that inclusive practices such as consultation and dialogue fostered an environment and disposition that supported LBCs’ capacity to cope with challenges in their everyday lives. Because of LBCs’ involvement in decision-making processes such as talking to them and tagging them along in preparatory activities (e.g. running errands in the migration agency), they have better understanding of the transnational set-up of the family and as such, parents have found it easier to secure ‘buy-in’ from them. As one LBC participant mentioned, “Mom, even if you are not here, we are still doing good. You know, we still have honours….And now I am assuming the role of a mother to my siblings.” When parents use ‘dialogue’ as a mechanism to create a unified narrative for the family (e.g. Do you want me to go home, then?) children have easier acceptance of the situation and are better equipped to face challenges. They also exhibit independence and self-sufficiency at home (e.g. doing household chores) and at school (promising to do their best in honour of their mother’s sacrifice). Most importantly, this resulted in stronger family relationships which is a key protective factor for children’s resilience. In contrast, when children feel excluded in the migration process, feelings of abandonment are harboured. This often leads to difficulty in communicating their feelings to their migrant parent or to significant others. As a result, LBCs struggle emotionally, experience sadness and depression, and disengage and underperform in school. Overall, exclusionary practices lead to strained family relationships which become risk factors for children’s resilience. In closing, this study found that there are key sources of support to foster LBCs’ resilience in their internal and external milieu and this include immediate family members, peers, and pets as emotional support.

Ackers, L. (2000). From Best Interests to Participatory Rights-Children's Involvement in Family Migration Decisions. Child & Fam. LQ, 12, 167. Bushin, N. (2009). Researching family migration decision‐making: A children‐in‐families approach. Population, space and place, 15(5), 429-443. de los Reyes, E. J., Blannin, J., Cohrssen, C., & Mahat, M. (2022). Resilience of higher education academics in the time of 21st century pandemics: a narrative review. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 44(1), 39-56. Dominguez, G.B. & Hall. B.J. (2022). The health status and related interventions for children left behind due to parental migration in the Philippines: A scoping review. The Lancet Regional Health. Western Pacific, 28, 100566–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100566 Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research for the social sciences. SAGE publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544307756 Mason J. 2000. Deciding Where to Live: relational reasoning and narratives of the self. Working Paper 19. Centre for Research in Family, Kinship and Childhood: Leeds. Punch, K., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to research methods in education (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. UNICEF. (n.d.) Children “Left Behind”. UNICEF Working Paper. https://www.unicef.org/media/83581/file/Children-Left-Behind.pdf