Cross-border interactions as an object of sociological research: methodological aspects


The unprecedented increase in the intensity of cross-border interactions in the modern world is emphasised, and the necessity of sociological monitoring of these processes is substantiated, the precondition of which is the creation of an appropriate methodology and methods. The stages of formation of theoretical sociology with particular attention to the genesis of cross-border interactions are considered. It is found that the main milestones in the formation of modern methodological principles of sociological analysis of this phenomenon are the post-classical stage of development of theoretical sociology (according to G. Zborovsky’s periodisation), the methodology of social constructivism, spatial turn and mobility in social development. The work of J. Urry’s sociology of mobility is considered, and its application to the Ukrainian realities is offered. Models of state regulation of cross-border mobility as one of the types of cross-border interactions, defined as the model of “gardener state” and “forest state”, are analysed. It is emphasised that these models had an explanatory power concerning the nation-states of the modern industrial era, but in the era of globalisation distort the understanding of central social processes and phenomena. The author analyzed the views of foreign and Ukrainian researchers on the methodological aspects of research on cross-border interactions. The systematic methodology of cross-border research, proposed by S. Ustych, is used and proposals for its improvement and implementation in research practices are formulated. The author’s position on methodological bases of sociological study of cross-border interactions as a differentiating and solidifying factor is offered.

  1. Zborovskiy, G. (2008). Metaparadigmal model of theoretical sociology. Socis – Sociological Studies, 4, 3-15 [in Russian]

  2. Malkki, L. (1992). National Geographic. The Rooting of Peoples and the Territorialization of National Identity among Scholars and Refugees. Cultural Anthropology, 7, 24-38.

  3. King, R., Skeldon, R. (2012). Theories and Typologies of Migration: An Overview and a Primer. Malmö: Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM).

  4. Wolff, L. (1994). Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilisation on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  5. Kolosov, V. (2003). Theoretical limology: new approaches. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy – International Trends, 3, 44-59 [in Russian]

  6. Security through social cohesion: proposals for a new socioeconomic governance. (2004). Trends in social cohesion, 10. Council of Europe Publishing.

  7. Lethbridge, J. (2017, March). Privatisation of migration and refugee services and other forms of state disengagement. Technical Report. Public Services International (PSI). Ferney-Voltaire, France. URL:

  8. Lendiel, M. (2015). Subsidiarity as the principle of social and political organisation: theoretical grounds and Ukrainian perspectives. Vìsnik Marìupolʹsʹkogo deržavnogo unìversitetu. Serìâ: Ìstorìâ, polìtologìâ – Journal of Mariupol State University. Series: History. Political Studies, 12, 211-217 [in Ukrainian]

  9. Kurylyak, M. (2018). Evolution of the concept of “Europe of the regions” in the framework of EU regional policy. Ekonomichnyi visnyk DonbasuEconomic Herald of the Donbas, 2 (52), 60-67 [in Ukrainian]

  10. Toshchenko, J. (2007). Paradigms, structure and levels of sociological analysis. Socis – Sociological Studies, 9, 6-9 [in Russian]

  11. Urry, J. (2012). Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.

  12. Muleev, E.Yu. (2015). “Travel behaviour”, “Motility”, “Mobility”: revisited the conceptualisation of terms. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal – Sociological Journal, 21, 3, 8-28  [in Russian]

  13. Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. London: Polity.

  14. Urry, J. (2011). Climate change and society. London: Polity.

  15. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalisation: The Human Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press.

  16. Sizikov, A. (2005). Dynamics of the formation of a transnational cultural space in the context of globalization. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts [in Russian]

  17. Tormosheva, V.S. (2018). Global (im)mobility in the mirror of postmodern transformations: the political aspect. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenieRussian Sociological Review, 17, 3, 329-345 [in Russian]

  18. Jensen, O. (2010). Erving Goffman and everyday life mobility. In The contemporary Goffman. New York: Routledge.

  19. Chernysh, N. (2014). Place of sociology of transborder processes in the structure of sociological knowledge. Heopolityka Ukrainy: istoriia i suchasnistGeopolitics of Ukraine: history and modern times, 2, 20-30. URL: [in Ukrainian]

  20. Ustych, S. (2014). Methodology of systematic research of transboundary processes and its social implementation. Uzhhorod: Polygraphy Center “Lira” [in Ukrainian]

  21. Chernysh, N. (2019). Ukrainian sociology in search of the general theory in the conditions of interdisciplinarity. Ukr. socìum – Ukrainian Society, 2, 9-34 [in Ukrainian]

Full text