Periodic Reporting for period 1 - ASYKNOW (Contested Knowledges in and through Asylum Litigation)
Okres sprawozdawczy: 2023-05-01 do 2025-10-31
Asylum adjudication is complex and contested due to a difficult evidentiary situation and a ‘climate of suspicion’ surrounding the category of asylum seekers. The high level of contestation and politicization in the field of asylum has increased the demand for a wide range of expert knowledge to support legal decision-making, but simultaneously thrown such knowledge into a terrain of conflict.
ASYKNOW will develop new conceptual tools for understanding the role of expert knowledge in asylum governance by investigating the ways in which knowledge about asylum seekers and migration is constituted and contested through asylum litigation. Empirically, the research will focus on how knowledge is mobilized, contested, and constituted in and through asylum appeal processes in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. By combining in-depth legal ethnography with legal archeology, the project will provide insights into the ways in which knowledge claims gain authority, how legal strategies evolve over time, and how various knowledge types shape state power over individuals and spaces.
ASYKNOW will develop new conceptual tools for understanding the role of expert knowledge in asylum governance by investigating the ways in which knowledge about asylum seekers and migration is constituted and contested through asylum litigation. Empirically, the research will focus on how knowledge is mobilized, contested, and constituted in and through asylum appeal processes in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. By combining in-depth legal ethnography with legal archeology, the project will provide insights into the ways in which knowledge claims gain authority, how legal strategies evolve over time, and how various knowledge types shape state power over individuals and spaces.
ASYKNOW has made significant achievements in its first 24 months towards advancing new understandings of the role of expert knowledge in asylum governance by investigating asylum-related litigation in different political and legal contexts.
The four case countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany) have developed distinctly different asylum appeal procedures. The first key activity carried out by team members was therefore to map and compare the legal and procedural framework in the four case countries to build shared ground knowledge as preparation for the ethnographic fieldwork.
The second major step was the execution of ethnographic fieldwork in the four case countries. The main part of this task has been carried out during the first reporting period, but will extend into the second period. The field research has so far involved in total 270 interviews/field conversations with a range of actors (e.g. lawyers, judges, experts, asylum seekers, support groups) and observation of 65 court hearings (total 385 hours) in all case countries.
Team members will also study selected cases using legal archaeology. This task began during the first reporting period and extends into the second period. In this first period, the focus has been on refining the methodology and identifying relevant lines of inquiry in each case country and for comparative purposes. We have refined two main approaches the project adopts to study the co-production of law and expert knowledge over time. In the first approach, we trace the interaction between different types of evidence as a specific case moves through the asylum adjudication process. In the second approach, we trace the trajectory of specific knowledge technologies (e.g. age-testing, biometrics, Country of Origin information) across a cluster of cases over time. The team has identified and accessed the first set of case files, with more to be identified in the second period.
The final task of the project will be to synthesize results from the first two research tasks to develop a richer theoretical understanding of the ways in which knowledge about asylum seekers and migration is constituted and contested in and through legal processes. The main part of this task is planned to take place in the second reporting period. However, the theory frame evolves in parallel with empirical research in the sense that it both informs and is informed by it. The research team has therefore met regularly to collectively identify interesting lines of enquiry, and patterns of variation and contingency emerging in the different research tasks.
The four case countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany) have developed distinctly different asylum appeal procedures. The first key activity carried out by team members was therefore to map and compare the legal and procedural framework in the four case countries to build shared ground knowledge as preparation for the ethnographic fieldwork.
The second major step was the execution of ethnographic fieldwork in the four case countries. The main part of this task has been carried out during the first reporting period, but will extend into the second period. The field research has so far involved in total 270 interviews/field conversations with a range of actors (e.g. lawyers, judges, experts, asylum seekers, support groups) and observation of 65 court hearings (total 385 hours) in all case countries.
Team members will also study selected cases using legal archaeology. This task began during the first reporting period and extends into the second period. In this first period, the focus has been on refining the methodology and identifying relevant lines of inquiry in each case country and for comparative purposes. We have refined two main approaches the project adopts to study the co-production of law and expert knowledge over time. In the first approach, we trace the interaction between different types of evidence as a specific case moves through the asylum adjudication process. In the second approach, we trace the trajectory of specific knowledge technologies (e.g. age-testing, biometrics, Country of Origin information) across a cluster of cases over time. The team has identified and accessed the first set of case files, with more to be identified in the second period.
The final task of the project will be to synthesize results from the first two research tasks to develop a richer theoretical understanding of the ways in which knowledge about asylum seekers and migration is constituted and contested in and through legal processes. The main part of this task is planned to take place in the second reporting period. However, the theory frame evolves in parallel with empirical research in the sense that it both informs and is informed by it. The research team has therefore met regularly to collectively identify interesting lines of enquiry, and patterns of variation and contingency emerging in the different research tasks.
The main progress beyond the state of the art in the first reporting period has been methodological. We have made significant steps to further develop legal archaeology as an interdisciplinary methodology. This will advance understandings of courts as a site of knowledge co-production in the field of migration. ASYKNOW researchers have observed court cases in all case countries, including the closed hearings of the Refugee Appeals Board in Denmark. This effort will enhance understanding of the Danish appeal process. It also addresses the fragmentation and bias in existing knowledge, which so far have favoured observations of open hearings or analysis of written documents.