Academics must work with government to challenge politically motivated policy - study

The paper argues that many academics have been critical of government approaches to immigration policy, the Hostile Environment and terms such as ‘integration’, which has meant some have been reluctant to work with government on this area.

Publishing their findings in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, researchers from the Universities of Birmingham and Sussex, as well as Queen Margaret University use a case study they did with the UK Government in 2019 on updating the 2004 Indicators of Integration framework toolkit.

By working with the Home Office the experts say they have made valuable contributions, leading to a more evidence-based policy toolkit, rather than one based on pure politics.

Jenny Phillimore, Professor of Migration and Superdiversity at the University of Birmingham, said: “Integration is a heavily criticised concept and term in migration studies and UK government policy surrounding migration, particularly asylum seekers, has become more hostile since 1999. Despite these challenges we worked with the government on the creation of the new Indicators of Integration framework toolkit.

“We brought our experience working with asylum seekers and our research to better inform the policy. This meant compromise for us, but without the engagement of academics and policymakers, in this case, civil servants from almost all Government departments, in co-production, we believe the resulting toolkit would have been significantly different.”

The researchers say that during their work with the Home Office they directly engaged with some of the key criticisms of integration by offering four core, co-developed principles, which they believe cut through the institutional cultural bias of policymakers:

• Integration is a shared responsibility requiring change and adaptation on the part of everyone, not just migrants.
• Integration is context specific, relating to socio-demographics and economic characteristics, geographical locations and that it happens at different times for different people/communities.
• Integration is multi-dimensional, sitting across housing, work, education, communication but can change and look different for each person/community.
• Integration is multi-directional, meaning that it is process of ‘mixing’ through interaction between diverse people in multiple ways, not just on the basis of ethnicity or countries of origin.

The study argues that these principles offered a new framework for thinking about integration policy, practice and scholarship. This led to changes such as instead of ‘refugees’ being used the document refers to ‘newcomers’ so that it could be used to support all newly arrived people.

The 2019 document also talked about integration differently, recognising it as changes from both the incoming and the diverse host communities, rather than focussed only on the changes refugees make.

Professor Phillimore concluded: “The Home Office team was charged with delivering to the agendas and priorities of elected politicians. As academics, we were not similarly constrained. We brought our knowledge of scientific evidence on integration to inform and shape policy to promote the wellbeing of forced migrants settling in the UK. Our direct participation gave us the opportunity to push back on politically motivated proposals and to use evidence to contribute to new thinking rather than legitimising the dominant political discourse.

“Our work underlines the importance of scholars taking the opportunity to engage with policy and to present scientific evidence as a mechanism to confront hostile immigration practices and address the social injustices that usually accompany migration.

“I would encourage academics across different areas, not just immigration, to work with government on issues that they can make valuable contributions to, even if they don’t agree with all of the government’s policies.”