THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLISH MIGRATION TO NORWAY AND TOURISM

In Norway today, Polish people currently total 120,000 members of the population thereby making them the largest immigrant group in the country (Statistics, 2010). By the end of the 2009, over 45,000 Poles were registered with permanent resident status (International, 2010). As a result, when discussing immigration or migration to Norway, it is impossible to do so on the comprehensive level without reflecting the Polish phenomenon related to the process. Contributing to the economy both on the tourist level and on the employment level, Polish migrants have significant impact on the Norwegian economy. The overall scope of the research study was designed to examine the interconnectivity between Polish migration to Stavanger

Norway, and tourism in Norway, while determining at who point to visitors to Stavanger cease to be tourists and become migrants. Using an original quantitative instrument, the study was unable to determine a specific infallible designation for the tourist/migrant paradigm. It was, however, able to identify several signifiers that could be used predict whether one has transcended from tourist status to migrant status. The results of the study also revealed that Polish residents in Norway attract other visiting Polish people who come frequently and engage in some tourism related activities.

KEYWORDS: Polish immigrants, tourism, tourists, migration patterns, globalization, European Union, Norway, Poland, Stavanger, illegal aliens

INTRODUCTION

A Topical Overview

 In Norway today, Polish people currently total 120,000 members of the population thereby making them the largest immigrant group in the country (Statistics, 2010). By the end of the 2009, over 45,000 Poles were registered with permanent resident status (International, 2010). While the registered Polish workers in the country account for 20,000 members, the number of individuals in the country illegally or temporarily could potentially be higher than 150,000 people (Statistics, 2010). As a result, when discussing immigration or migration to Norway, it is impossible to do so on the comprehensive level without reflecting the Polish phenomenon related to the process. Polish people are attracted to areas in Norway like Stavanger due to economic prospects, high concentration of Polish immigrants and an overall welcoming attitude toward the outsiders. Contributing to the economy both on the tourist level and on the employment level, Polish migrants have significant impact on the Norwegian economy.

 The influx of Polish individuals to Norway is a relatively new phenomenon that coincided with globalization and the entrance into the European Union. In the early 1900’s, there were few Polish people living in Norway. The number increased exponentially after the Second World War, however, the numbers did not again spike until the advent of the Twenty First Century. Polish residency in Norway at the present time is typically designated into the following  legal parameters: student, permanent worker, temporary worker, seasonal worker, commuter and family members of workers. Illegal Polish residents in the country can be linked to similar dynamics; however, they simply do not have the official recognition of Norway as being there legally. Many individuals that come to Norway as commuters or visiting friends eventually take up permanent or semi-permanent residence in the country.

 The overall scope of the research study was designed to examine the interconnectivity between Polish migration to Stavanger, Norway, and tourism in Norway. Tourism, as the practice of traveling for pleasure, draws people toward a particular area of interest. For the area, the benefits of attracting individuals is economic in nature and beneficial to related industry contingent or affected by the tourist trade. Similarly, migration is the process of individuals moving from one location to another. Migration can occur for a variety of reasons, those reasons include but are not limited to political strife, economic opportunities and unification with migrated family members. Migration generally necessitates a welcoming condition by the host nation and some sort of benefit to the migrant or the potential migrant beyond what is available in their current circumstance. Migration can be both temporary and permanent. For areas with high patterns of immigration, tourism to those regions by family members wishing to visit their kin results both in increased tourist activity and a potential for extended stays or immigration to the region by those individuals. The nature and impact of these interactions is both complicated and has tremendous impact on both the host nation and the nation from which the individuals are leaving.

Research Question

 At what point do Polish visitors to Stavanger, Norway, cease to be tourists and transcend to the designation of migrants? By answering this question, it is recognized by the researcher that it is possible that no formal point can be established due the variations and complexity of the situation. On the other hand, it is hypothesized by the researcher that general points true of most circumstances can be established to differentiate Polish tourists from migrants in the area. Factors that will be involved in exploring this question are: residency status, legal status, employment status, commuter status, length of time in the country and long term plans of the individuals. In addition, the driving factors of immigration and tourism will be explored at length during the literature review in an effort to identify key variables related to the study.

A Review of Literature

 Poland has been one of the most prolific contributors to new immigrants to the EU-15 during the past several years (Barrell, Guillemineau & Liadze, 2006). As the EU extended to 10 new countries in 2004, the variables have opened even more possibilities (Barrell, Guillemineau & Liadze, 2006). According to researchers, Barrell, Guillemineau and Liadze (2006), general “Estimates of Polish emigration since May 2004--the date of accession to the EU --- range from 500,000 according to the Polish Center for Migration Studies to around 1 million according the Polish Ministry of Labor on the basis of information provided by home offices in the EU” (p. 36). The main destination for Polish nations according to official records are: Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy (Barrell, Guillemineau & Liadze, 2006). In Norway, some 11% of Poles have acquired formal Norwegian citizenship (International, 2010). With the large majority of immigrants who are young people brining their spouses, the number of Polish children being born in Norway is also quite high at 5% (International, 2010). Other notable immigrant groups with a high presence in Norwegian society include people from Sweden and Lithuania (Statistics, 2010).  

 Migration to other countries both effects the nations from which the individuals are leaving and the nations in which the individuals are arriving. The “first impact of immigration is to affect the labour market equilibrium (Barrell, Guillemineau & Liadze, 2006). The demand for labor in these situations at first does not change (Barrell, Guillemineau & Liadze, 2006). During this phase, the new migrants either displace the current working population of the country or they remain unemployed on arrival (Barrell, Guillemineau & Liadze, 2006). According to Barrell, Guillemineau and Liadze (2006), “at a later stage, higher unemployment reduces negotiated wages and therefore the average wage level as compared to where it would otherwise have been” (p. 36). Lower wages, in turn, temporarily suppress inflation thereby reducing interest rates (Barrell, Guillemineau & Liadze, 2006). On the output level, immigration first reduces productivity as it skews the labor market by provided surplus of cheap labor but then the higher levels of utilization increases the return on existing capital (Barrell, Guillemineau & Liadze, 2006). For countries like Norway, “Migration flows tend to have, trend-wise, only transitory impacts on unemployment and the inflation rate but permanent effects on the long term level of output” (Barrell, Guillemineau & Liadze, 2006, p. 36). For economists and policy makers, this is a subject of much consequence. Polish immigrants in Norway due affect both the short and long term economic conditions of the country.

 While the afore mentioned dynamics are largely associated with Polish migrants on the economic level of employment, tourism based constructs that do not include Polish migrants actually working in the country also influence Norwegian society. Some Poles entering Norway are not there for employment or prospects of employment. This individuals can be categorized as visitors or family members of workers. In regards to the family members of workers, these people are best considered within the paradigm of employment based economic impact. This is due to them being their indirectly as a result of employment possibilities. In addition, the offspring of these individuals can influence the labor market at later times. On the visitation level, however, there is the pure tourist who visits Norway for its high Polish populations and tourist attractions ranging from Fjords to a variety of natural phenomenon. On the other level is the tourist who visits the country to specifically see family who has already migrated there. These visitations are based less on the attractive qualities of Norway and more on the simple fact that they wish to visit their friends and family members. Norway, in these conditions, just happens to be where they are located at the present time. The opportunities for employment and the high concentration of potential family members and other like cultured people, however, can serve as decisive influence for those people themselves ultimately wishing to immigrate or remain in the country for extended periods of time. From similar values to the influence of the Church (Herald, 2008), like cultured people tend to attract other like cultured people on the sociological levels.

 Tourism effects the local economy generally in positive dimensions. As it stands, “Tourism accounts for around 15% of total services and revenues. In 1998, there were 1,176 hotels with a total capacity of over 137,000 beds and nearly 1,000 registered campsites” (Nation Encyclopedia, 1010, p. 1). During the late Twentieth Century and early Twenty First Century, foreigners were estimated to account for nearly 32% of hotel guests (Nation Encyclopedia, 2010). Tourism, as a stand along entity, brings money into Norway thereby making it something worthy of expansion from an economic standpoint. Immigration, though it can have positive impacts on the economy, can just as easily have negative ramifications if not monitored. Creating the division between tourism and migration, therefore, is necessary to establish proper regulatory dimensions. The tourism-migration nexus is articulated by Hall and Williams (2002) to include the following main themes: tourism and labor migration, tourism and consumption migration and visiting friends and relatives (VFR) tourism. The latter is best articulated as an extension of migration (Hall & Williams, 2002). As a result, it can be stated that high rates of Polish migrants in Norway will result in higher trends of VFR related tourism to the country. According to Hall and Williams (2002) “data constrains, together with a weak theoretical base in the face of the need for an holistic approach, have contributed to the overall lack of research on circulation and temporary mobility related to tourism” (p. 3). It can be stated, within this reported paradigm, that less is known about the connections between tourism and migration than is known based on a deficiency in literature related to the topic.

 In addition to the overall economic impact of migration and tourism, there is also social impacts related to the phenomenon. In the most overt designation, there is potential hostility and animosity that can proliferate between Norwegian nationals and Polish immigrants. Such divisions can create widespread social problems and if reflected in legislation, could lead to social exclusion of minorities. Globalization has resulted in a shift toward recognizing the importance of diversity (Acona et al., 2005). Much in the same way organizations have scrambled toward efficacious uses of diversity, nations have also been forced to consider the implications of diversity and craft policy that makes the best use of its positive attributes rather than the potential ramifications of its shortcomings. Divisions in society based on minority status are not conducive to the overall well being of nation. On the other hand, facilitating tolerance and diversity requires change and methods that are often times seeking to alter deep rooted attitudes and perspectives (Acona, et al., 2005). In addition to social interaction between migrants and nationals, there is also the influence of migrant dispersion that can impact the host country. In other areas, such tourism and dispersion of migrants has led to increases in construction, higher populations in urban centers and overall changes in the spatial distribution of the land that would have not occurred if the respective migration did not happen (Salva-Tomas, 2002). The faster such influx of new people occurs, the more radical the changes will be as a result (Salva-Tomas, 2002). The literature reviewed suggests that there is:

 1. There is a significant influx of Polish migrants and tourists coming and present in Norway.

 2. Both tourists and economically motivated migrants impact the economy in their own unique manner.

 3. Tourists and immigrant workers are connected because high concentrations of immigrants positively impacts the number of VFR tourists.

 4. The propensity of VFR tourists to immigrate is higher than that of conventional tourists visiting for non ethnic group connection dimensions.

 5. There is a great deal unknown about the relationship and divisions in the current literature regarding migration and tourism.

 6. Rates of immigration and tourism have social and spatial impacts on their destination locations.

 7. Both globalization and ascension into the European Union have provided favorable conditions for increases in Polish migration throughout Europe.

The aforementioned sets of conclusions facilitated by the review of literature will be used as a framework for examining the research questions and conducting the mixed methods study.

Hypotheses

 The following has been hypothesized by the researcher based on the review of literature.

 H1: The survey will results will have difficulty establishing definitive markers between immigration and tourism but will be able to establish situational signifiers that such a transition has occurred.

 H2: The survey results will demonstrate that Polish residents staying in Norway (either permanently or temporarily) are currently attracting Polish tourists.

Conclusions

 Both immigration and tourism can have a profound social and fiscal effect on the host nation. As a result, it is necessary to understand the separation of the two dynamics and the connectivity of the two dynamics. In doing so, policy makers can better craft legislation that is properly responsive to the true state of the situation rather than speculating or being biased by popular societal perspective. Popular societal perspectives, though omnipresent in all human societies, are quite fallible and often rooted in mythology as much as they are in fact. The framework proposed by this research study will provide a better framework for understanding the Polish/Norway immigration/tourism phenomenon.

METHODS

An Overview of the Selected Methods

 In an effort to access the proposed research question, a quantitative methodological study was conducted. As a quantitative design, the study will seek to identify those points and signifiers where the division between migrants and tourists falls for Polish individuals living in Stavanger. The data collected will come in the form of a close ended instrument disseminated to a targeted popular sampling. By nature, quantitative data is efficient and does not contain as many details or perspectives that would be present in a qualitative design. The innate weaknesses of the design are typical of any quantitative study in general in that they lack specific perceptual details. While the instrument and method employed will be able to identify signifiers and potentially the point where migrants and tourism divisions can be set, it cannot explain the reasonings the respondents either chose to stay tourists or become migrants. These issues were discussed at length in the review of literature to assuage this potential limitation in the study.

Research Process

 The scope of the research was carried out at two intervals in time. These two intervals used an original close ended questionnaire that outlined the demographics of the individual surveyed, as well as their perspectives and outlook on being from Poland and currently living in Norway.^[1] In total, 100 surveys were distributed to individuals of Polish descent who were in Stavanger, Norway. As a sampling size, 100 surveys was determined by the researcher to be of sufficient scope for providing a strong cross section of the population being surveyed. Surveys were conducted two times on Sundays (one week after another) after Mass in St. Svithun’s Roman Catholic Church in Stavanger, Norway. At the conclusion of mass, there is a customary social gathering where parishioners socialise and have refreshments. It was there at the conclusion of the evening mass where the surveys were distributed. In each situation, 50 surveys were distributed to people who had stayed behind after mass. In the event that individuals who were present at the second survey distribution mass that had already filled out a form the prior week, these people were asked to refrain from answering twice. As a result, all 100 completed surveys were from different individuals. The surveys were explained and provided in their native Polish tongue. This also provided insurance that the respondents were of Polish descent living Norway and not merely other people that could have been present in the congregation. By using a broad sampling size, discouraging individuals from doing more than one survey and making sure the questionnaire was written in Polish, strict attention to the validity of the data gathering process was ensured. Appendix I is a copy of the actual questions that were distributed to the test subjects.

Subject Protection and Ethical Considerations

 Though a variety of personal information was collected for the interview to establish demographic trends, there was no specific data pertaining to their name or identity based information that could tie a survey directly to a specific subject. In addition, all the test subjects were completely voluntary and each consented to participating in the survey. This is true of both data collection sessions. As a result of the nature of the subject, little risk or ethical considerations beyond identity protection were relevant to the subject. The anonymity of the quantitative and qualitative surveys holistically protected any potential ethical considerations that could have manifested as a result of the methods employed.

 As previously articulated, validity in quantitative instrument was protected by the sampling size, keeping the questionnaire in Polish and keeping individuals from answering more than one survey. In an effort not to add to much personal insight into the matter, the researcher added as little discourse into the data gathering process so not to lead the subjects in any specific direction. In addition, a trial run of the instrument was tested and adjusted accordingly before the actual study began. As a result, some of the initial problems and ambiguities reflected in early incarnations of the methods were mitigated by the time of the actual study.

Methods: Conclusions

 The scope of the qualitative data that was collected to address the articulated research questions was sufficiently robust for providing unique insight into the questions. The results section will formally express the trends and information that was revealed by the data so they can be evaluated and considered within the framework of the literature reviewed during the discussion portion of the research study.

 RESULTS

Introduction

 In order to thematically frame the results of the questionnaires, the responses will be identified in three categories: demographical overview, pull related variables and visitation demographics. Though the questionnaire is not broken up in such a manner for the respondents to see the themes being analysed, these themes are sufficiently robust to reflect the necessary dimensions being explored within the context of the study.

Demographical Overview

Figure 1 illustrates the demographical overview that was represented in the results

The demographical overview of the participants suggested that most of the individuals were living in Stavanger and Sandnes. The majority of the respondents were 46-55 years of age with either Primary or Secondary schooling backgrounds. The statistical variance in whether they migrated from North, South or West was insignificant with North being the region most came from. The least amount of respondents came from Eastern Poland. Most individuals surveyed were either married or in a relationship. Though the unemployment rate was high, most participants were either employed (working for someone else) or owned their own business. Only 5% of the respondents were students in the country.

Pull Related Variables

Figure 2 represents the pull factors that were articulated by the 100 respondents.

The vast majority of the respondents had not been living in Norway for very long with the majority of respondents indicating they had only lives there 1-3 years (48%). Only 3% of the respondents had been living in the country for 5 years or more. Work (72%) was the primary pulling variable bringing this Polish population to Norway. This pull variable was followed by family reunification on a statistically significant lower level of 13%. Though some respondents were students, Norway could not be considered having a pulling construct of higher education based on this data. Most of the individuals surveyed could either speak Norwegian, English or both and over half of them indicated that Norway was the only country in which they have lived other than their homeland. However, 46% of the respondents indicated that they had lived in other countries in and out of the EEA prior to arriving in Norway. In terms of travelling back to Poland within the last year, 62% of the respondents indicated that they have only travelled back to Poland 1-2 times and 4% had not travelled back to their home country in the past year.

Visitation Demographics

Figure 3 Represents the visitation demographics related to the respondents

Note. All statistical representations are for the past year.

 The dominant gender of the visitors arriving from Poland is females at 61%. This coincides with the number two relationship of visitors to the host being husband/wife (29%). Family members comprise 100% of the visitors that were reported in the survey. The average ages vary with most falling between 36-45 years of age or 46-55 years of age. The parts of Poland from which they are visiting are congruent to the parts of Poland from which their hosts have originated. In 78% of the reported scenarios, Norway is their final stop. The vast majority of family visit once a year at 74%. In terms of the total family tourists visiting, only 23% have hosted 6 or more guests in the past year. All have hosted at least one tourist guest in the past year however. Of the visitors, 81% stay with the host and 11% stay in hotels. In terms of boosting the tourism economy by staying hotels, this does not seem to be the majority situation when dealing with Polish visitors staying with migrants. Among the participants in the study, 46% say that they have not left Norway in the past year. In contrast, 43% admit to traveling abroad annually. Visiting frequency also revealed an undecided nature surrounding repeat patronage by the tourists. In this capacity, only 18% were deemed likely to return while 18% were undecided and 11% were less likely to do so. In addition, when visiting, the majority of individuals favored fjord related activities.

Result Conclusions

 The individuals surveyed were a close split between the male and female gender. Most came to Norway looking for employment and are currently employed.  A little less than half of the individuals surveyed had lived and been employed in another country besides Poland prior to taking up residency in Norway. The average age is between 36-55 years. Stavanger or the nearby Sandnes were the areas that the vast majority of those surveyed currently lived. In terms of the visitors in which they receive, all of the participants received at least one family visitor in the past year with most receiving multiple family members. Females comprised the bulk of those visiting and Norway was more often than not their final destination. While most visitors stay at the homes of the host, fjord related activities seem to hold the most interest of any single activity identified by the respondents. The degree to which the hosts travel outside of Norway varies and the expected definitive return of family members visiting was not as concrete as the pull related data would have suggested. Only 18% of family members were identified as being likely to occur. In the subsequent discussion section, this data will be framed in conjunction with the literature reviewed and collected for the discourse.

 DISCUSSION

 Based on the survey results, establishing a definitive marker for the point when Polish visitors cease to be tourists and transcend to the designation of migrants is not easy. Conversely, there are several signifiers present in the data that can provide critical insight into the phenomenon. Though work has attracted the vast majority of the respondents to Norway, establishing whether or not they are permanent workers or of the migrant variety is more challenging. What is known is that most of the respondents have been in the country for between 1-5 years. This does suggest some degree of permanency. In contrast, 29% of the visitors to these individuals were spouses. having a spouse that lives in Poland still would be a strong indicator that the person working in Norway is doing so on a temporary basis. In addition, only 13% of the respondents came to Norway to reunite with family. The lack of a significant draw to attract family members also adds validity to the conclusion that some of the 100 individuals polled do not consider themselves to be permanent residents of Norway. Under the visitation demographics, the low numbers associated with repeat patronage assuredness by tourists suggests that it is more likely for the workers in Norway to return to the spouses rather than their spouses migrating to Norway to be with them. As a result of this data, one signifier that an individual has become a migrant and not a tourist would be those situations where both husband and wife are living and at least one of them is working in the country.

 While this dynamic constitutes a signifier, it is not sufficiently robust to accommodate all circumstances. For example, this would not be applicable to individuals who are not married or who are not in a relationship with marriage in their future. It also would not be applicable to the individuals who are in Norway as students. Another signifier that could help assuage these deficiencies in using the first signifier alone would be the amount of time in the country. If the individual has been in the country for one year or more, as 62% of the respondents were, this number designates a degree of permanency to their arrangement thus suggesting that they have fully migrated to the country and are not merely temporary migrant workers. Their visitation status would be more difficult to argue as a state of tourism if they were in the country for over a year.

 It is also possible to use employment or free enterprise ownership as an indicator of permanent residence versus tourism. It could be stated that an individual working in a country is no longer a tourist because a reason beyond leisure or visitation of family has been established. If this signifier is used, the data suggests that only 14% of the respondents were unemployed. When this number is combined with students 5%, 19% of the respondents could possibly be given a temporary designation as their status for being a Polish person in Norway. The 68% of the respondents who were employed and the 18% that owned their own enterprises could then be classified as full migrants with permanent residency. The pensioner/retired designation at 6% would present a complication to the signifier as a retired/pensioner could be visiting or they could be permanently staying. Using the quantitative instrument, there is no way to make such determinations.

 The language variables related to the people visiting could also be an indication of the perceived permanency of the individual’s arrangement. Learning a foreign language takes a degree of commitment by an individual and it is something that does not come easy to adult learners. As a result, if the respondent has taken the time to actually learn the language of the host nation or another language frequently used in that host nation, this could be a signifier that the person is no longer a tourist in the area and that he/she is attempting to make the place a permanent residence. Of the respondents, 40% indicated they could speak Norwegian and 25% indicated that they could speak English. Since both of these languages would be used in Norway more often than Polish, this could indicate that the respondent has fully migrated to the host nation or has aspiration to do so. For the 26% of the respondents that indicated that they could not speak any other language, it is possible that they have not learned as they do not see it necessary based on their temporary status in the country. As with the other signifiers, this would not be a full proof designation as it is possible that the length of time in which the person has been in the country has not been enough for them to master the host tongue well enough to indicate it as a second language on a questionnaire.

 Another signifier that residency is temporary could be frequent visitations back to their homeland. Conversely, less visitation to one’s homeland could indicate a feeling of establishment in the host country. Frequent visitations to the homeland could suggest a feeling of disconnect with the host country and a refusal on behalf of the individual to accept that they have permanently moved. This signifier is not sufficiently robust to account for family illness or emergency in the home country, a desire to travel or the case of a spouse or significant other who is not yet in a position where he/she can leave to join the other person. In addition, there are other variables that could contribute to frequent visits to one’s home country that do not have to do with one not being firmly established in the host country. This signifier also has the potential to be skewed by class restrictions. Travelling abroad is expensive so individuals with more disposable income would be more likely to travel home. In contrast, individuals with less disposable income would not be able to travel home as often though they might have a strong desire to do so.

 The people who were coming to visit and to not work who have an unknown status as to whether they will return could be accurately described as tourists. If the length of stay by the individuals visiting were recorded in the survey instrument, it would be possible to find more specific signifiers as to the length of time that a person could be in the country before they cease to be a tourist. Such a question could be addressed in a future research study that built upon these particular findings. Coming to visit family, however, is a common temporary act practised by cultures all over the world. With a high concentration of Polish migrants already living in Norway, it is of small wonder that family tourists with no desire to permanently switch residence would come to the nation. Their primary motivation would be visiting and their secondary motivation would then be the unique or attractive activities that are present in that country. Conversely, it is also possible that they would either visit and want to stay or that they are visiting to scout a potential location to migrate. If they see their family members living their and doing well, this would be an attractive quality in a potential migration destination.

A Presentation of Signifiers

 Though the presented data did not establish a definitive point in which Polish visitors to Stavanger cease to be tourists and transcend into the designation of migrants, the data was sufficiently lucrative to establish frameworks for considering whether a person is a tourist or a migrant. Though it would not be always accurate and there are exceptions that would negate its potential findings, by putting each individual case within the framework of the following signifiers, an educated guess as to whether the individual has stopped being a tourist could be fostered. These dimensions are not articulated in any particular order of importance. Lettering A-E has be used to separate each one so false contexts of numerical ranking of signifier importance does not accompany the list in any way:

 (A) What is the length of time the person has been in the country?

 (B) Is there significant other or spouse also with them in the host country or are they still  in their homeland?

 (C) Is the person currently employed in the host country or are they engaging in the  generation of capital through the ownership of free enterprise?

 (D) Has the individual learned the native language or other commonly spoken language  of the country?

 (E) How often do they leave to visit their home nation?

If these signifiers are applied to individual cases of Polish individuals living in Norway, it would be possible to make fairly educated assessments as to whether they would be classified as tourists or migrants. The primary weakness of this framework would be that it would not be possible to use for large sweeping estimations of the population. It would be far more efficacious for individual cases. Future studies as to its accuracy would also have to be conducted however.

Discussion Conclusions

 Applying these signifiers to the 100 people surveyed in Norway, it could be estimated that 10 - 25% of those surveyed currently in the country could still be considered to have a tourist status. Without the addition of qualitative data, however, such a designation cannot be refuted nor substantiated. This estimation is purely for demonstrative conjecture and not meant to be a firm conclusion of the data. The data does not suggest a definitive signifier or point where tourist and migrant can be divided. On the other hand, it does present a number of signifiers that could be used in a systems capacity with one another to make educated assumptions about a given member or group of the population in question. One of the main issues that was revealed as a weakness in the survey instrument was its inability to measure the length of time in which the family visitors of the people surveyed stayed in Norway. Had the average length of time of a tourist been established, this data could have been compared to the other demographical data related to the participants surveyed to possibly establish a more definitive interval when one dynamic stops and the other begins. Though it is possible that the addition of such a question would not establish a definitive variable, it would certainly, at the minimum, established another important signifier for consideration in the discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

 Tourism and migration both can have significant impact on the economic and social policies of both the host country and the country from which the individuals are departing. Depending on the rate, level of assimilation, period of time and the general attitudes of both the visitors and the host nation, the impacts can be positive, negative or both. The sheer rate of Polish individuals entering Norway suggests that something significantly impacting is taking place. Since it is a relatively new phenomenon and has not been occurring for a long period of time, the long term implications of the process are unknown. In the short term, what was revealed by the quantitative instrument is that Polish people staying in Norway (regardless of the time) attract other Polish visitors. The majority of the visitors in which they attract, based on the survey results, are tourists whose return status is unknown. Polish immigration, therefore, has a positive impact on drawing tourists into the country. These tourists, however, are a special type of tourist in that they participate in typical tourist activities present in Norway; yet, they typically do not use the hotel services. In this capacity, they are not the same economic consumer of hospitality services that other conventional tourists would be. Though they may not contribute economically in this manner for the most part, during their stays they are putting foreign capital into circulation for the country and they are spending on other tourist related activities with the aforementioned exception of lodging.

 The employed quantitative instrument was unable to determine a specific interval of time or signifier that would be applicable to all situations for establishing when a tourist has hit migrant or permanent status in the country. The data revealed that there are a number of ways that such information could be deduced (signifiers) but none was sufficiently robust to account for all of the complexities related to undertaking such a task. For individuals cases, looking at how the persons interact with the (5) signifiers could produce enough information where status or intended status of the visitor could be deduced. This is limited, however, as it cannot be used for broad sweeping analyses. For policy makers, it is possible that they could adapt certain signifiers to designate status knowing that the categories would be imperfect but applicable to most situations. In political action, having frameworks in place that mostly accurate with some exceptions is more norm rather than the exception. As a result, this information could still be useable for policy makers. Though quantitative tool did not discuss the issue, illegal versus legal immigration also holds a high potential to complicate the findings. Holistically, the data generated from the survey instrument did prove both hypotheses proposed by the researcher.

Recommendations for Future Research

 The nature of the quantitative instrument was such that it could only establish patterns, numbers and values to given categories. While this is useful for straight data interpretation, it was limited in that it could establish intent. If a qualitative instrument was used in addition to the quantitative tool, the perspectives of the people surveyed could be added to the other results for a more complete understanding of the situation. Such a survey could determine 1) whether the person considers themselves a migrant/tourist, 2) when they think a tourist becomes a migrant and 3) their overall long term intent of being in Norway. This data would be useful for the social implications of the migration and tourism patterns. Extending the quantitative instrument was also proposed at early points in the discourse. This too could be useful for future research. If future quantitative tools included the following questions, a more telling stream of data would result:

 1. How long did your guests stay while visiting? *1-2 weeks *2 weeks - 1 month * 2- 6 months * 6 months - 1 year * 1 year or more

 2. How would you classify your status in Norway? *Permanent Resident *Temporary Worker *Student *Tourist

 3. Are you citizen of Norway or seeking citizenship status? * Yes I am a citizen * I am not a citizen yet but I wish to become a citizen * No I am not a citizen and I do not wish to be * I’m a temporarily visiting the country.

The addition of these three questions to the instrument, though seemingly insignificant on a cursory glance, could actually add a self regulatory perspective without having the ambiguity of a qualitative instrument. In either situation, the addition of a qualitative tool or the addition of these and related questions to the quantitative instrument or both would be the best representation of the data in which this study sought to collect and analyse. In its present form, the study still has tremendous value and implications for researchers and policy makers; however, it has substantial room for improvement.

References

Acona, D., et al. (2005). Managing for the Future. Canada: Thomson.

Barrell, R., Guillemineau, C., Liadze, I. (2006). Migration in Europe. National Institute  Economic Review. (198); 36-44.

For many immigrants, faith provides a foothold in their new home country. (2007). Daily Herald.  Paddocok Publications. 1.

Hall, C.M & Williams, A.M. (2002). Tourism and Migration. New Zealand: Springer.

International. (2010). Poles largest minority in Norway. 

Norway. (2010). Encyclopedia of the Nations.

Salva-Tomas, P.A. (2002). Foreign Immigration and tourism development. Tourism and  Migration. ed. Hall & Williams. New Zealand: Springer.

Statistics Norway. (2010). SSB.

APPENDIX 1

Quantitative Survey Instrument

The following instrument was disseminated to 50 members of Polish descent that were attending a reception at the conclusion of a church service. The original study was conducted in the Polish language and the process of dissemination occurred on two consecutive Sundays thereby making the total population sampling 100 Polish respondents.

Place of living:  □ Stavanger  □ Sandnes  □ Sola  □ Klepp, Gjesdal  □ Ryfylke + Finnøy   □ Rennesøy + Randaberg □ Other location 

Gender:    □ Male   □ Female

Age group:  □ 0 – 25  □ 26 – 35  □ 36 – 45  □ 46 – 55        □ 56 – 65  □ 66 +

Education:    □ Primary   □ Secondary  □ Higher   □ Other

Part of Poland you are coming from:    □ North □ Central  □ South   □ East   □ West

Occupation:  □ Unemployed □ Employed  □ Pensioner/Retirement  □ Own enterprise  □ Student   □ Other ………………………….   

Civil status:    □ Married   □ Divorced  □ Single  □ Widowed   □ In a relationship □ Other             

Reason/purpose of arrival to Norway:                   □ Work  □ Studies  □ Family reunion □ Other ………………………….     

Do you speak other language than your native one:  □ Norwegian   □ English   □ Other   □ No   

How long have you been staying in Norway:    □ < 6 months   □ 6 months – 1 year □ 1 – 3 years   □ 3 – 5 years  □ 5 + years              

Did you work or were resident in other country than your homeland, before you come to Norway:  □ Yes, in the other EEA country □ Yes, in other land outside EEA  □ No 

FOR THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS – PLEASE REFFER ONLY TO THE LAST 12 MONTHS

How often have you been travelling to Poland:    □ 1 - 2  □ 3 – 5  □ 6 and more  □ Never  

What sort of visitors you are getting in Norway:

 □ Husband/wife  □ Parents   □ Kids □ Family members 

 □ Friends   □ Other ………………………….    

Visitor’s gender: (show numbers) 

Male ……..  Female ……..

Visitor’s age group: (show numbers)   0 – 25 …... 26 – 35 …... 36 – 45 ..…. 46 – 55 ..….    56 – 65 …..  66 + …...

Part of Poland your visitors are coming from: (you may tick more than one)     □ North □ Central  □ South   □ East   □ West

If outside Poland – from what country:  □ ………………….………………….  

Is your destination in Norway for your visitors final or just a quick stop? 

 □ Yes  □ No  □ If no (name the destination) ………………………….  

Being visited by family/friends how many visitors have you hosted at once?    □ 1 - 2  □ 3 – 5  □ 6 and more  

How often did your family/friends visit you in Norway:  □ 1 - 2  □ 3 – 5  □ 6 and more  □ Never    

How many visitors have you received\hosted in Norway:    □ 1 - 2  □ 3 – 5  □ 6 -10  □ ………………………….   

 Where do your family/friends stay while visiting you: (you may tick more than one)    □ My place  □ Hostel □ Camping  □ Hotel/motel  □ Other ……………….     

How do you spend time with your visitors and/or your family: (you may tick more than one)               □ Sightseeing   □ City seeing   □ Culture events □ Sport activities   □ Beach activities   □ Mountain activities  □ Fjords activities  □ Diving  □ Fishing  □ Biking   □ Shopping  □ Other ……………………….   

How often have you been travelling inside Norway:    □ On weekly basis  □ On monthly basis  □ On yearly basis □ Rarely   □ Never 

How often have you been travelling outside Norway:   □ On weekly basis  □ On monthly basis  □ On yearly basis □ Rarely   □ Never  

How likely is it that your visitors will come back to repeat visits in the near future in Norway?    □ Very likely  □ Likely □ Undecided   □ Less likely □ Will not come