Escaping uncertainty: overlapping methods of knowledge production and exchange in the naturalization journey

Abstract

This paper examines how forced migrants integrate individual perception, interpersonal exchange, and extended networks to navigate the naturalization process. By bringing together these three methods of knowledge creation and exchange, we aim to clarify how these strategies interact and overlap to manage uncertainties stemming from naturalization bureaucracy, a complex and often opaque process. Drawing on personal accounts of 30 Syrians in Berlin and analysis of approximately 100 social media posts, our findings illustrate that these methods could be employed concurrently or interchangeably and on the whole in a symbiotic manner, offering migrants multiple pathways to acquire and (in)validate crucial information. Although this synthesis of knowledge production methods is not necessarily conducive to accessing the right in question, in our case naturalization, it becomes necessary to arrive at “informed” decision-making in uncertain environments characterized by low level of trust and asymmetrical power relations. The paper therefore contributes to broader discussions on migrants’ navigation of legal systems and coping mechanisms in the face of bureaucratic hurdles.

Introduction

A recurring challenge that forced migrants face is the need to navigate uncertainty. While contemplating leaving, individuals and their families grapple with a myriad of unknowns, debating the feasibility of their departure and the potential repercussions that staying may have on their lives. This uncertainty persists throughout the migration journey, where individuals encounter dynamic environments and circumstances which compel them to continuously decide to either stay their original course or alter their trajectory in hope of a more favorable outcome (Collyer, 2010; Wyss, 2022). Along the way, exchanges with formal and informal intermediaries may prompt the need to negotiate risks with limited information as in the case of smugglers, or to navigate legal intricacies as with resettlement and aid organizations. Information exchange as a strategy to mitigate uncertainty becomes paramount in these contexts (Schapendonk & van Moppes, 2007). Although less obvious, the need to navigate uncertainty does not cease when migrants “arrive”; rather, it transforms into a continued imperative to navigate bureaucratic systems. Asylum-seekers need to decipher legal frameworks, and administrative procedures associated with asylum and integration processes. Often characterized by their complexity, these bureaucracies perpetuate ambiguity and the ongoing need for strategies to collectively reduce uncertainty in the post-migration phase.

Prior research has examined how forced migrants gather information to make decisions during different points along their trajectory, including the initial decision to migrate (Dekker et al., 2018; Thulin & Vilhelmson, 2013), subsequent migration decisions (Mallett & Hagen-Zanker, 2018), resettlement and aid negotiations (Campion, 2018; Lloyd et al., 2013; Özkul & Jarrous, 2021), asylum processes (Wyss, 2022), and integration bureaucracy (Oduntan & Ruthven, 2020). They have drawn attention to the informality of repertoires for knowledge production stressing particularly the role of interpersonal exchange (Özkul & Jarrous, 2021; Wyss, 2022) and exchange with extended networks (Dekker et al., 2018; Miellet, 2021). While the insights gained from individual perception have received less attention, it is also a core part in the knowledge transfer process (Lloyd et al., 2013; Lyberaki et al., 2008). In this article analyzing the naturalization processes of forced migrants, we synthesize three primary methods of knowledge creation and exchange: individual perception, which involves first-hand witnessing of and/or self-informing about the legal and bureaucratic environment; interpersonal exchange, which relies on sharing insights and information within personal networks; and extended networks, which utilize broader second-nature, often digital, communities to gather and disseminate information. While these methods have already been identified in previous analyses individually and with more narrow definitions for specific contexts, we propose here a more general terminology in order to explore how these methods are combined: individual perception, interpersonal exchange, and extended networks.

We envision the three methods as interconnected, engendering a symbiotic relationship in knowledge transmission. When utilized in tandem, they can produce similar pieces of information from different sources, enabling validation and substitution effects. This substitution effect additionally means that individuals do not necessarily need to apply all the methods or apply them sequentially but are able to mix and match when appropriate. Moreover, we argue that while the overlap in information between the different methods serves as validation, contradictory information obtained through the different methods only solidifies mistrust in the system. Validation of information does not mean that the information is indeed correct or in line with the official sources. Therefore, even though the three different methods of knowledge production and exchange are not necessarily conducive to accessing the right in question, in our case naturalization, they become imperative for “informed” decision-making in uncertain environments resulting from forced migration and characterized by low level of trust and asymmetrical power relations.

Our contribution relies on data collected from 30 in-depth interviews conducted with Syrian forced migrants who are eligible for naturalization in Germany. While not all interviewees had been through the process personally, they have inquired and already gathered information to make a decision on whether or not to apply. Additionally, we gathered and analyzed roughly 100 social media posts about naturalization bureaucracy in Germany from a dedicated support group. The urgency and relevancy of different information along a forced migrants’ trajectory is context dependent and thereby warrant different modes of exchange.

The selection of naturalization bureaucracy is relevant to research on knowledge transfer as it has not yet been explored in this context, but there are also features immanent to the naturalization process that make it particularly well suited to study knowledge exchange. First, we contend that the environment in which migrants navigate naturalization is more conducive to exchange and therefore better suited to study a combination of different methods. Unlike the distribution of aid or resettlement programs where there are finite resources or a fixed number of spots available, naturalization is not a zero-sum endeavor, removing any incentive to withhold information. Exchange during asylum determination is hampered by the fact that it is designed as an individualized process where nationality, ethnicity, age, and other personal factors play a large role in the outcome, limiting the value of generalized advice. As for physical migration, decisions are time sensitive or may occur in an isolated environment with limited physical or digital contact, neither of which are conducive to exchange. Second, since naturalization bureaucracy occurs at the end of a migrant’s legalization process and bureaucratic trajectories (Haller & Yanaşmayan, 2024), we are able to observe the cumulation of learnings and strategies acquired from navigating other uncertain environments. Last but not least, a closer look at naturalization processes presents an opportunity to carry insights from the scholarship concerned with how forced migrants arrive at decisions when faced with incomplete information to literature on migrants lived experiences within citizenship studies (Bassel et al., 2021).

Implementation of naturalization policy in Germany

Naturalization policy in Germany is created, interpreted and implemented on three different levels: federal, state, and local. The varying roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government are critical for understanding the empirical findings presented in this study, as the varying interpretation of administrative procedures and implementation of local policies can produce unlike environments which influence the efficacy of knowledge exchange methods utilized during the naturalization process. The Federal government’s primary function in the naturalization process is to adopt the legal requirements that set out the minimum standards and thresholds in order to qualify for naturalization. Once a law is passed, implementation is largely left to the discretion of the Länder insofar it does not conflict with existing Federal administrative procedures outlined by the Bundesrat, which houses representatives from each of the 16 Länder (Farahat & Hailbronner, 2020). Implementation in this case means the procedural guidelines that describe how the requirements set forth in the law should be measured, evaluated, or interpreted. For example, section  8 subsection 1 of Germany’s nationality act stipulates that to naturalize one must clarify their identity but does not specify how exactly one’s identity should be determined. It is therefore up to the Länder to interpret laws and produce guidance as to how the law should be carried out. To encourage a more uniform interpretation, the federal government published an implementation guide for the Naturalization Act (vorläufige Anwendungshinweise), however the document is not legally binding leaving a wide margin for the interpretation vested to the Länder governments. Schmidtke (2021, 1351) describes the Länder as playing a “peculiar” role in the policy field of migration governance in that the decentralized implementation of policy has enabled the Länder to become policy entrepreneurs by developing more robust community practices and administrative capabilities. Further variation in the implementation is caused by the de-centralized organization of the application process at the local level, which has been shown to affect experiences (Gülsau et al., 2022). Since Berlin, at the time of the interviews, had a decentralized system where applicants needed to resort to the district (Bezirk) authorities, which not only led to varied practice on the ground but also to a “hunt” for information best practice district authorities that we will show below.

Knowledge production and exchange in naturalization process: navigating uncertainty, illegibility, and information gaps

Since the primary focus of our article is the identification of the methods that facilitate the production and exchange of knowledge in the naturalization process, we draw from literature on the experiences of forced migrants navigating new physical and political environments and emphasize how accumulated experiences and established trust networks form the basis for the adaptive information exchange strategies observed during the naturalization process.

In the context of migration decisions and journeys, Williams and Baláž (2011) posit that imperfect information about one’s environment is a key source of uncertainty. Migrants often mitigate this through strategic information gathering. In the case of forced migrants, the decision to flee is often taken without much time for preparation (FitzGerald & Arar, 2018) and changes and challenges to the environment develop at rapid speeds and in highly dramatic ways (Horst & Grabska, 2015), prompting an acute lack of knowledge and rendering information stale within just a few days (Hampton & Türkyilmaz, 2023). Given the need for real-time updates, the recent experiences of other migrants become an important medium for knowledge exchange to assess how conducive certain locations are for transit or stay (Williams & Baláž, 2011). Trust, developed through these initial exchanges, becomes a critical asset as migrants later navigate the complexities of bureaucratic encounters.

After arrival in a destination country, the need to exchange and adapt does not end as asylum and integration bureaucracy poses its own challenges with the associated uncertainty often taking on a “much more protracted and slow form” (Horst & Grabska, 2015, 2). Das (2007), in her research on the relationship between state power and the everyday lives of citizens, describes the disconnect between the written laws, rules, and regulations and how they are applied in practice as the ‘illegibility’ of the state and its bureaucratic appendages. This illegibility makes mere knowledge of the law insufficient; rather, understanding how these laws are practically applied is crucial for navigating them effectively. Odutun (2018, 181) similarly emphasizes that access to relevant procedural information in the integration bureaucracy is necessary for migrants to bridge significant information gaps in what he dubs “the survival of the informed”. The asymmetry of knowledge often results in systemic barriers and misinformation, necessitating reliance on a variety of information sources to navigate these uncertain environments (Borelli & Wyss, 2022; Eule et al., 2018; Özkul & Jarrous, 2021).

Literature that zooms in on migrants’ lived experiences with bureaucracies often emphasizes the exchange with personal networks as a means to access legal information and practical know-how on the implementation of relevant policies (Etzel, 2022; Suerbaum & Richter-Devroe, 2022). Eckert (2012, 156), for instance, describes the process of “horizontal knowledge transfers” where relevant information on policies and laws is filtered and then exchanged among peers in relation to concrete situations. Filtering between peers serves to narrow down the often-overwhelming amount of information to only what is applicable to a specific situation. Yet the informal nature of the exchange also adds an air of uncertainty to the information which is also often classified as “rumors” (i.e. Carlson et al., 2018; Shibutani, 1966). In such contexts, the value of trusted contacts becomes paramount, as their credibility can help mitigate the inherent uncertainty of otherwise unverified claims (Granovetter, 1973). Therefore, while they are not official sources of information, rumors still play an important role in filling information gaps that result from protean nature and general inaccessibility of the law (Oduntan & Ruthven, 2020) and are also considered as “interpretative labor” that is needed to combat information asymmetry (Özkul & Jarrous, 2021, 2255). This is particularly salient in the case of forced migrants where official sources may be limited making the recent experiences of other migrants an important component of knowledge exchange (Williams & Baláž, 2011). The need for alternative forms of information also pertains to the need to acquire more subversive knowledge from sources that challenge official narratives and provide practical know-how—what Scott (1985, 317) would refer to as the “hidden transcript”. The ability therefore for interpersonal exchange to facilitate the accumulation of data of the trials and errors of others from diverse sources and simultaneously have the insights processed through a web of trusted contacts makes it the bedrock of the knowledge acquisition and transfer process.

Closely connected to the act of rumoring and interpersonal exchange are the perceptions of individuals which generate insights into bureaucratic practices that inform navigation strategies and subsequent knowledge transfer. Literature that documents migrants’ navigation of bureaucracy have noted that migrants perceive the decision-making processes to be largely disconnected from the law and instead based on the moods and whims of street-level bureaucrats, as substantiated by their perceptions drawn from their personal experiences (Eule et al., 2018; Wyss, 2022). As migrants interact with bureaucracies either directly with officials or indirectly through correspondence or protracted waiting times, they develop an understanding of how the law is implemented in practice. In addition to information gleaned or inferred from experiences with bureaucracy, individuals can also generate information more directly through interaction with the media or governmental figures (Oduntan & Ruthven, 2020). The THEMIS project shows that information and perceptions disseminated through publicly visible examples, such as TV and radio, significantly influence migration decisions and outcomes, even beyond personal social networks (Bakewell & Jolivet, 2015). Although gathering information at the individual level and the subsequent synthesis of perceptions play a key role in the generation of procedural knowledge, migrants’ low level of trust in state institutions moderates the role that insights from official sources play in their overall assessment (Affolter, 2022; Bohmer & Schuman, 2017; Borelli et al,. 2022).

Finally, while interpersonal exchange is effective because of the trust embedded in the information shared, exchange with others who are already in one’s own network may be of limited value if their networks overlap in a significant way. In this case the exchange may just result in the circulation of stale information, devoid of additional resources or actionable items (Dekker & Engbersen, 2013). This limitation prompts the need to tap into more extended networks where the underlying relationship may be weaker and therefore less trustworthy, but may have access to different information which can serve to expand one’s current knowledge or be used to verify existing knowledge. For forced migrants, social media has recently become an indispensable tool to navigate both migration and bureaucratic processes. During migration journeys, exchange with fellow migrants who are at different stages of the journey is helpful to gather real-time updates on routes, border-crossings, or other developments (Merisalo & Jauhiainen, 2021; Zijlstra & van Liempt, 2017). Dekker et al. (2018) detail how Syrians would exchange contact information with other migrants they encountered on platforms like WhatsApp or Viber as they are well suited for rapid exchanges. As forced migrants arrive and begin the asylum process the need for real-time updates become less accentuated but transforms into platforms for exchange of strategies. Sites like Facebook, that serve as decentralized forums, are well suited for this purpose. The exchange typically occurs in pages which are dedicated to a single topic (e.g., asylum, parenthood, naturalization) and around user-generated content such as posts on individuals’ experiences, testimonials, or questions and the corresponding exchange through comments. For asylum seekers in the Netherlands, Miellet (2021) observed that users would often share tips to navigate daily life in an unfamiliar setting or ask specific questions about locations or processes to help them navigate Dutch policies. In addition, recent research by Monteiro (2024) on the use of Reddit by newcomers to Canada further underscores the gaps that informal platforms fill, finding that one fifth of all posts addressed needs not covered by settlement service providers. The need for up-to-date information on entry and integration procedures was also made particularly salient in the German context as a result of the high volume of laws and administrative guidelines that were passed during a period of ‘legislative hyperactivity’ between 2014 and 2019 in response to discourses about migration management and security (Hruschka & Rohmann, 2021). This period saw an unprecedented surge in policy changes, creating a labyrinthine legal landscape that further complicated the already arduous process of arrival and integration for forced migrants.

While in a vacuum the information from social media may not be as trustworthy as from a close contact, the decentralized nature of the platforms does have the advantage that the information does not originate from any single authority, but from the “public sphere” (Held et al., 1999). Therefore, social media sites serve an important secondary function to make sense of conflicting or unverified information by acting as a digital agora where the best ideas¹ rise to the top, which is also facilitated by the algorithms that make the most “liked” comments more visible. The sentiment that exchanges with extended networks serve to complement other forms of knowledge acquisition and exchange was also echoed in interviews by Hampton and Türkyilmaz (2023).

Methods

For our interviews, thirty participants (women, n = 11; men, n = 19) were primarily recruited through Facebook and subsequent snowballing. Individuals who had joined either a general group for exchange between Syrians in Germany—‘The Syrian house in Germany (البيت السوري في المانيا)—or a group specifically tailored toward naturalization—“Permanent residency and citizenship in Germany” (الإقامة الدائمة والجنسية بألمانيا)—were contacted at random and asked if they would be willing to share their opinions on citizenship acquisition and experiences navigating the process, if possible, at an in-person interview.

The interviews took place between October 2021 and April 2022 and were semi-structured to elicit opinions and experiences regarding naturalization processes, but not to limit other relevant discussion concerning prior relevant experiences and future plans with respect to citizenship. Participants were initially contacted in Arabic and interviewees were given the option to speak (Syrian) Arabic, German, or English. Approximately half of the interviewees elected to conduct the interview in Arabic with the other half in English or German, but it was common to mix languages especially when discussing technical terminology. To standardize the analysis all interviews were first translated to English before being coded. In addition, it should be noted that the interviewing author is not a native speaker of Syrian Arabic, but fluency in the dialect helped to develop a sense of trust in the interviews through shared cultural knowledge.

All interviews followed a similar outline. Participants were first informed that the purpose of the interview was to learn about their experience navigating the naturalization process and notified that their identity would remain anonymous before consent was confirmed verbally. Next, participants were asked a series of open-ended biographical questions concerning their life in Germany (e.g., current employment, living situation, local networks, and language abilities). On the topic of naturalization, applicants were first asked if they were aware of the requirements in order to naturalize and whether they have interest in applying. Depending on the respondent’s answers, we subsequently probed with targeted questions about their motivations to apply and any hurdles they faced or strategies they employed. The interviews then concluded with a discussion about the respondent’s future plans. Interviews typically lasted approximately 40 min, but a few outliers lasted upwards of two hours in cases when participants elected to give extensive biographical information.

Experiences with the naturalization process were certainly not monolithic. There was generally a desire to obtain German citizenship to acquire a more secure status and facilitate travel abroad, however differing access to resources, experience with integration bureaucracy, and ability to traverse bureaucracy contributed to varying abilities and interest in actually engaging with the required bureaucracy among participants. A common thread among respondents’ responses was a negative perception of naturalization bureaucracy and the process in general. Responses ranged from complete rejection, categorizing the process as unfair or intentionally difficult, to indifference, with the requirements being perceived needlessly complicated or serving as a mild annoyance. In addition, there were some factors specific to Berlin that affected participants equally. At the time we conducted our interviews the system was under strain from the large number of requests and applications leading to exorbitantly long waiting and processing times for applications and left several interviewees unable to secure an appointment at all. Further, the decentralized nature of decision-making processes in Berlin added an additional layer of uncertainty for all applicants, potentially exacerbating the need for more information. When selecting specific vignettes to share in our analysis we focused on these similarities and selected individuals whose experiences were representative of other respondents, particularly with respect to perceptions of street-level bureaucracy, rumoring, and navigating uncertainty.

In addition, we collected data to analyze how social media is used in the knowledge transfer process during the navigation of citizenship bureaucracy. We recorded all posts and its top two comments in the Facebook group “Permanent residency and citizenship in Germany” (الإقامة الدائمة والجنسية بألمانيا) that occurred within a seven day period in October 2022, May 2023, and August 2023. Further, we recorded the total number of comments, and a description of any media attached to the post as metadata for our analysis. In the time period we surveyed we recorded 96 user-generated posts which we coded inductively to create categories that summarize the objective of the posts. To gain permission to the group and upon joining we explicitly stated that we are researchers, and our purpose was to study the process of acquiring German citizenship.

Knowledge production and exchange in navigation of naturalization

Individual perception and interpersonal exchange

I met Layla at a cafe in central Berlin on a weekday morning just after opening. The cafe was nearly empty, but we still sat near the back away from the one or two other guests for the interview. Layla is in her mid-thirties and highly educated, having completed her bachelor’s studies in Syria and a master’s degree in business administration abroad before returning to work shortly before the outbreak of the war. She arrived in Germany in 2014 and after spending six months in a reception center near Leipzig, moved to Berlin where she since has cycled between a mix of studies and short-term employment. At the time we spoke she was employed as a barista but was still receiving some subsidies from the Job center. She is generally interested in naturalizing, as she hopes to live outside of Germany in the future, but she made it clear that despite being qualified, she is not ready to engage with the bureaucracy necessary to obtain it. I asked Layla how she went about determining the requirements to qualify, to which she responded.

I ask friends because I haven’t thought of it in a specific way. I’m studying, I’m looking around, I know eventually I can go to the internet and find everything that I want. I will get everything when I want to apply, but I’m not ready to do this part.

For Layla, asking friends for the information she required served as a first step to determine what she would need to apply and if she was qualified. This is in line with previous research that has noted that forced migrants prefer information from close contacts rather than more formal sources (Carlson et al., 2018). Further Layla’s quote echoed a general sentiment expressed in the interviews that, when needed, any gaps in knowledge can be supplemented with the information available online. This attitude speaks to our argument about the complementary nature of different methods of knowledge acquisition. In this case, knowledge from her personal network would be supplemented and verified by her extended networks, that is through social media sites before she starts the process and gathers information through individual perception. In addition, the relaxed nature with which Layla expresses that she is able to browse for information is also a key point of differentiation between citizenship bureaucracy and the asylum determination or migration status processes. Navigation of citizenship does not face the same time constraints, hence the search for information is not as acute and the migrants are more seasoned in their approach to gathering information.

On the other hand, this does not mean that the access to information is guaranteed nor that rumors do not play an authoritative role. When asked about the process of naturalization, Layla expressed a skeptical attitude towards bureaucracy in general and about naturalization, in particular which was fueled by the experiences of her friends as well as hearsay. It is also important to consider that since naturalization can be considered the final stop of the legalization process, their perception of bureaucracy and strategies for navigating uncertainty have been colored by their previous experiences (Haller & Yanaşmayan, 2024). Responding to whether she knows of how any of her friends navigated the process Layla explains that.

I’ve heard about a lot of people who have gotten citizenship after working for two years. Most of them just give money to the lawyers. I heard a couple of days ago about a guy who after five months of coming here took a good lawyer and got citizenship, in only five months – and I was like is it true I don’t know if it is real: does that happen?

Rumors serve as a technique to meaningfully interpret ambiguous situations by pooling collective resources (Shibutani, 1966). In transmitting procedural knowledge, or knowledge on how to navigate a bureaucratic process, rumors take the form of ‘stylized facts’ that summarize a collection of observations, which gives hints about how to best navigate it (Carlson et al., 2018). In Layla’s case rumors play a pivotal role in her interpretation of how to best navigate the bureaucracy, namely that lawyers are the key to a successful outcome, and that lawyers can help flex the written law to achieve a desired result. Layla also expresses her suspicion about the information that she is sharing with me, actively questioning its veracity. The uncertainty surrounding how the law operates in practice in this case manifests as a perception that implementation is variable and does not necessarily follow from the written law. Layla was fully aware of the eight-year residency criteria required to naturalize, as we discussed it earlier in our interview, so the story of an individual who naturalized after only five months serves to highlight to what extent the information gathered through rumors can override the official sources of information. It also shows, even if somewhat suspiciously, how the power of bureaucrats in binding the law is considered to be omnipotent, even when individuals are well informed about the letter of the law. While citizenship law is not amended as often as migration law (see for instance Borrelli & Wyss, 2022), the variance in implementation between different districts in Berlin, heightens the need for localized information and prompts individuals to turn to their interpersonal networks.

We continue to talk with Layla about her knowledge of how the processes of naturalizing works and she later adds on the subject of the unpredictability a story from a friend who recently naturalized:

Layla: For example, I have a friend who is a pharmacist and she now has citizenship. She tried to apply many times just because she mispronounced a couple of sentences mistakenly even though she has C1² [the employee] didn’t give her citizenship

Interviewer: during her interview?

Layla: Yes, during her interview. So, this year she applied again and got it thankfully yeah, but I don’t know, it shouldn’t be that hard.

What Layla describes at face value appears to be an extraordinary situation, an individual being refused citizenship for mispronouncing words during the application consultation. However, the anecdote appears to serve as the basis for her perception that the process is unreasonably difficult and evidences the strength that interpersonal connections have on individuals’ perception of the process and ultimately their decision to undergo (see also Haller & Yanaşmayan, 2024).

I spoke with Farhan around a month later in late March 2023 in a similar setting. We met at a café near where he lives in Berlin on a weekday afternoon and found a quiet spot near the back to chat. Farhan was in his late twenties at the time of our interview. In Syria, he had studied economics for his bachelor’s degree and was planning on pursuing a master’s degree, but the intensification of the conflict compelled him to come to Germany in 2015. His parents were both born in Syria, but since his father is originally Palestinian, he does not have Syrian citizenship. Therefore, upon his arrival in Germany he was categorized as stateless. He initially received a ‘gray card’³ which granted him one year of residency while his asylum application was being processed. In this interim period Farhan had plenty of free time and used it primarily to learn German with his own means as he did not qualify for state-funded integration courses without a protection status. Farhan received asylum after a year and a half of waiting, and when asked why he believed the wait was so long shared his observation that.

I think there is just too much bureaucracy. For example, I came here in 2015 and there were people who came after me, like at the end of 2016, and they got their permit before me while I had already been waiting for a year. They don’t do things one by one, they do it like I’ll take this one this one and then that one.

In Farhan’s case, his perception of bureaucracy has been colored by his previous experiences. Whereas Layla came to the same conclusion from rumors she heard from acquaintances, Farhan’s perception of discretion and bureaucracy were driven from his own perception highlighting how the different methods for acquisition and exchange can function as substitutes for one another and operate non sequentially. On the topic of naturalization, Farhan shared that he is deeply interested in acquiring German citizenship, primarily motivated by his current statelessness and desire to travel yet is hesitant to apply for an initial consultation given his lack of documentation (i.e., birth certificate left in Syria). He estimates the current wait for an appointment for a consultation is upwards of a year, and if he were to arrive without all required documents he would be dismissed and need to start again in another year, making the effort in vain. While his expectations on the necessary documentation and average duration are very much determined by hearsay and knowledge acquired through networks, his actual hesitation to apply seems to be mostly tainted by his previous individual experiences with bureaucracies that made him weary of discretionary implementation of the law:

When I go to the foreigners’ office and I ask them a question he gives me an answer. Then I go to a different employee in a different office and I get another answer. I’m saying the same question with two or three different answers...They are free to give you whatever decision.

Farhan here distills what he believes to be the underlying cause of the outcome to knowledge of how bureaucracy functions, observing that employees are free to deliver decisions irrespective of the law. The tendency to assign motives or causality when describing processes that conflict with one’s own expectations serves to rationalize what is often perceived as a chaotic process and additionally highlights the role of individual perception as the genesis for procedural knowledge. The inability to identify the causal mechanisms of how the law operates in practice manifested in the perception of an implementation gap, similar to Layla’s experience. In addition, with respect to naturalization processes specifically, long and opaque wait times have given rise to the perception of extra-legal filtering or intentional opaqueness intended to maintain ignorance or unwanted applicants by bureaucrats (Lori, 2022).

Still on the topic of naturalization bureaucracy, Farhan supports his perception and makes a more general claim about the power of street-level bureaucrats by invoking the experience of his friends. He explains.

They [street-level bureaucrats] make a decision that might not be in the law. For example, I know a lot of people who have actually brought the law printed out and have said under this law I can do this and this and this and then the employees say no you can’t. There are some employees that don’t want to read it. They just say send us an email and we’ll make our decision.

In this case his friends’ experiences serve to bolster his own perception that employees can come to different conclusions from each other and generalize his experience to produce the stylized fact that bureaucrats are capable of making decisions that are outside of the law.

When asked how one is able to navigate the bureaucracy if the results can vary, he shares “there is no solution, well there is actually a solution the best thing to do is to speak with a lawyer and they will handle it for you.” He explained this observation derived from his own experience attempting to get a residency permit and stories from his friends when lawyers proved to be the only solution after his friends were unable to assert their identity to apply for naturalization without a Syrian passport. Again, Farhan’s own perception and related information from his close contacts intertwine to produce his procedural knowledge as to how bureaucracy operates and how to best navigate it. What is also intriguing is that even though Farhan and Layla prioritize different methods of knowledge production, they both end up with the same way forward, namely hiring a lawyer, not because they are perceived as the authoritative source of knowledge about the “law” but because as gate-keepers to successful application, regardless of what is in the law.

Extended social networks

We gathered and analyzed three weeks’ worth of posts and comments in the Facebook group “Permanent residency and citizenship in Germany” (الإقامة الدائمة والجنسية بألمانيا), which was one of the groups we used for recruiting. We recorded the content of posts as the top two comments that were displayed by Facebook, the number of total comments, and a description of any media attached to the post. In total we collected 96 posts and after reading each of them, they were clustered along five categories: advertisement for services, assistance with documents, general advice, personalized advice, and calls for stories where individuals would make open-ended requests for others’ experiences (Table 1).

Table 1 Breakdown of posts

‘Advertisement for services’ was the least common type of post among the five and consisted of unsolicited recommendations such as contact information for lawyers. These posts typically generated little discussion or engagement. Similarly, individuals requesting the experiences of others did not garner much engagement. These posts made up roughly 8% of the total share and consisted of requests for the experiences of others with the naturalization bureaucracy without a specific reference to a problem. For example, several posts asked if anyone had previously applied for citizenship in a specific city and what their experience was like and one that had generated significant discussion was about if anyone had successfully applied for citizenship by claiming German ancestry.⁴

Posts that were categorized as assistance with documents made up just under 10% of the total and typically fell into one of two scenarios. They were either photos or text of official correspondences asking for general advice on how to proceed, or specific clarifying questions on words or phrases used in documents. One example of the latter was an individual asking for clarification on the definition of the word “Verarbeitung” asking if it was different from the phrase “Bitte Geduld haben” that he had received in a previous correspondence. These posts that had a reference to a document or correspondence, generally generated the most discussion with an average of 16.75 comments per post (Table 2). By connecting with so many people, each with overlapping bits of knowledge, those who post or even browse the comments passively are able to source specific information that may not otherwise be available in one’s closer circle of friends or family. Social media sites in this way can serve as an alternative to more general search engines to get information that is domain specific. The engagement on posts also serves a secondary function to validate the trustworthiness of the associated information. Dekker et al. (2018) through conversations with Syrian asylum seekers note that a common strategy to verify rumors is to accumulate evidence through a large number of views, likes, or comments. One respondent noted.

The more likes a Facebook page has, the more trustworthy it is. In Facebook groups you can find replies from many different people. When these are viewed many times, you can see if the information is trustworthy. When all replies are positive, then the information is good (Ibid, 8).

Table 2 Engagement with different types of posts

While information from a single stranger online may be less trustworthy than that of a close friend, there is a perception that in the aggregate, posts or comments with the most positive engagement can be trusted.

The vast majority of posts were however related to specific problems or questions related to navigating the naturalization process or concerning the interpretation of citizenship policy. One third of these requests were for general advice meaning they did not contain a specific reference to the poster’s situation but sought out some piece of widely applicable information. Posts would frequently portray general situations and seek advice based on the law such as when it is permissible to travel back to one’s home country while one’s citizenship decision is pending or whether it is possible to receive citizenship without having completed the integration course. In these examples, the advice sought is not the law in isolation, but applied knowledge or the law applied to a specific context. Access to this type of information is key as the difference between how the law is written and how it is implemented is one factor that contributes to illegible bureaucratic environments (Wyss, 2022). This is, as we saw earlier with Layla’s rumors, not exclusive to social media, highlighting the overlapping nature of different methods of knowledge acquisition and substitution effect between interpersonal exchange and extended networks. However, not all posts were interested in interpretations of the law, other posts in the same category were aimed at more procedural matters or accessing unwritten policies or rules that are only accessible through the trial and error of other individuals’ past experiences. Common themes included asking about naturalization processes in certain district administrations such as how to get an appointment, how long the process took, or questions about specific documents. These posts also included more subversive topics like which illnesses or disabilities would exempt an individual from working or studying to apply for citizenship.

The largest single category however was personalized advice, or individuals requesting input on their specific situation. These posts appeared to be the primary function of the groups as they made up half of all posts. Some posts requested advice for specific situations, for example a woman who posted that she has already submitted her application and required documents for citizenship, but realized that her interviewer did not ask for her housing contract or rent, and wants to know if this is normal or if she should follow up and send this information. This speaks to the limitations of other methods and unique property of exchange with one extended network where individuals can draw experiences from a much larger, and likely diverse, group of people to access information that is more tailored than what general rumors may offer or that may simply not be available within their personal network. Other posts sought more personal rather than situational advice such as, provided a set of characteristics (i.e., age, date of arrival, residency status, and employment), whether others believe they are qualified to naturalize or what they would need to do to increase their chances. As evidenced by Farhan and Layla’s stories, individuals acquire information in different orders and in different ways, at times entirely skipping one method of over relying on another. The variance in these posts is also indicative of that: while some seem to consult social media while in the process of naturalization for a specific aspect for which information is either not yet readily available in close circles or in need of validation, others start engaging with the extended networks from the onset asking more general questions and informing about standard requirements.

Conclusion

Forced migrants are often confronted with uncertain environments where their access to information is at best limited. During the flight, the need to traverse unknown territories and to judge the conditions for stay in imperfect information flows becomes vital. After arrival in the destination country—whether final or transitory—the challenge to navigate state authorities dominates the living conditions that are already legally and economically precarious. Acquisition of citizenship in the destination countries therefore often is a means to end legal precarity and thereby ensure a “certain” stay in the countries (Della Puppa & Sredanovic, 2017). Yet, the naturalization process itself is associated with anxiety, uncertainty, and illegibility. Forced migrants actively produce and exchange knowledge not only on their own but also as a ‘community of practice’ (Hampton & Türkyilmaz, 2023).

In this article, we seek to systematize the different methods of knowledge exchange and production that forced migrants have at their disposal and to account for the symbiotic relationship between these overlapping methods. We identify three main methods—interpersonal exchange, individual perception, and extended networks—and explore how they interplay and complement each other in dealing with the complexities of naturalization processes. Our analysis shows that these methods are not necessarily used in a sequential manner nor are they mutually exclusive but rather are employed concurrently and interchangeably. Our data shows that some migrants solicit the support of extended networks immediately prior to kicking off the process, whereas others seek out help for fine-tuning their files. This interplay of different knowledge exchange methods underscores the necessity of flexible adaptation and the importance of community in navigating the often-confusing process of naturalization. Even though this does not ensure access to accurate information and to the right in question, the mixing of different methods of knowledge exchange is perceived more trustworthy than seeking information merely through state channels. In our data we also find that interpersonal exchange and indidvual perception are frequently refrenced in tendem to build a collection of evidence in support of a specific claim. Further research may wish to investigate more throughly how indidvuals draw from these different sources of information to inform their worldview and how conflicting information is processed. Since our study focuses on Syrian forced migrants in Berlin, we recognize that certain findings may be influenced by this specific context, such as the decentralized nature of Berlin’s bureaucratic processes and the unique challenges faced by Syrians. However, we believe that the general methods of knowledge exchange—individual perception, interpersonal exchange, and extended networks—are broadly applicable and can provide insights into the naturalization processes of forced migrants in other regions and contexts.

Naturalization processes differ from migration decision-making in distress situations and asylum application in several key ways. While migration and asylum determination processes often involve navigating unknown territories under acute stress and time constraints, naturalization is a more protracted process that takes place in a more familiar context, albeit with its own set of complexities. The illegibility of the bureaucracy associated with the process makes it difficult for immigrants to ascertain the causal mechanisms that produce certain outcomes contributing to the perception that there is a gap between the letter of the law and how it is applied. In navigating this uncertainty, the information required in the naturalization process is less personalized than the asylum determination and the fact that it is not a zero-sum game, unlike aid distribution, allows more room for knowledge exchange. Moreover, naturalization is typically situated towards the end of a migrant’s journey, marking their formal acceptance into a new society. Hence, the strategies used to navigate this process are often shaped by earlier experiences with migration and asylum bureaucracies (Haller & Yanaşmayan, 2024), but also involve a deeper level of engagement with legal systems and societal norms. Indeed, our respondents demonstrate a high level of legal literacy and much of the uncertainty stems from the low level of trust in the implementation that is both mitigated—when the information from different sources overlap—and to a certain extent triggered—when information from different sources contradict—by the overlapping methods of knowledge production.