Step 1: Scoping for research topics
The scoping phase will identify what the most pressing COI gaps are for UK asylum applicants and therefore which topics of Strategic COI reports have the potential to benefit both a large number of applicants and those most vulnerable to poor decision making.
To identify the most pressing topics for our research reports, Asylos will:
Regularly consult their networks of legal representatives and refugee community organisations that support asylum seekers in the RSD procedure (asking partners to specify why exactly the topic is so important, asking them to point to Home Office country specific asylum policy known as Country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs) and Reasons for Refusal Letters (RFRLs) where appropriate)
Launch an open call for topic suggestions and disseminate it to its respective lists of subscribers.
In addition, Asylos will:
Monitor such forums as the Statelessness Forum and Refugee Legal Group and the Refugee on an ongoing basis
Monitor the requests it receives for research assistance on individual cases
Record the statistics for common themes in the reports it produces for individual cases
Invite suggestions from partners who have requested our services as part of the ongoing feedback collection.
Asylos will assess which topics to select on the basis of greatest potential impact, with reference to analysis of:
The number of asylum seekers generated by nationality (UK asylum statistics are not published on convention ground/profile)
Appeal success rates by nationality
any existing upcoming Country Guidance (CG) cases that the Tribunal is to hear [to avoid duplication]
A need for an evidence base to challenge existing CPINs [e.g. where it relies on outdated or uncorroborated COI].
Throughout the scoping exercise, we will approach actors that represent groups particularly vulnerable to information gaps and thus poor-quality decision-making, such as women, children and young people.
In addition, Asylos will set up a Steering Committee who will assist in the selection and prioritisation of strategic research report topics, as well as manage any risks arising from the project. Members of the committee will be approached at least once during the early project phase in order to review and comment on the planned methods and execution. The Steering Committee consists of the following members: Walaa Kayyal (MEAL Specialist, Danish Refugee Council), Judith Carter (Solicitor and Lecturer at Liverpool Law Center), Shahd Qannam (Research Student at City, University of London), Thomas McGee (PhD researcher at the Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness) and Elizabeth Ruddick (Senior Protection Associate, UNHCR).
Step 2: Identifying preliminary Terms of Reference (ToR)
Once a research topic has been chosen, the following steps will be taken in order to identify the preliminary research headings (i.e. draft ToR):
Read relevant Country Guidance (CG) cases from tribunal (identifying which evidence is outdated)
Read relevant Home Office Country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs)
Reference other COI guidance/policy publications from international organisations such as EUAA, UNHCR as well as sources from media, human rights organisations and academic research
Include input from other stakeholders (project partners).
The draft ToR will be drawn up by Asylos Programme Manager(s), providing input from their topic scoping activities.
Step 3: Training session for Asylos volunteers
Asylos will source from its volunteer network a group of volunteer researchers for each report to conduct the COI desk research and to assist with interviewing stakeholders.
Volunteer researchers will be fully briefed on the project purpose, design and research methodology. They will then be required to attend a zoom training session facilitated by Asylos Programme Manager(s) which will cover the following:
Advanced COI research techniques
Conducting stakeholder interviews
The nature and scope of the research gap that the report aims to address
Any Home Office guidance and policy related to the topic
How experts are instructed in the UK, including how to ensure experts are aware of guidelines for expert testimony in a UK court
Step 4: COI Desk Research
For each report, we will undertake a review of the publicly available COI. This desk research will be coordinated by Asylos’s UK Programme Manager(s), working with a team of volunteers.
Before the research begins, Asylos will devise and commit to consulting an agreed list of sources from an agreed period of time. This list will be divided among the volunteers to consult and to submit any relevant findings which will be included in the final report. When any additional sources are identified in the desk research volunteers will record them alongside the initial list, and submit any relevant information.
Once this list has been exhausted, each volunteer will also be designated several of the ToR and asked to do some final research on those topics to ensure that any further sources are identified and included.
Research will be conducted in line with Asylos’s internal COI research training and handbook and adhering to accepted COI research standards, including elements of the EASO country of origin information report methodology (EASO, 2012), the ACCORD COI training manual (ACCORD, 2013) and the Common EU Guidelines for Processing COI (European Union, 2008). Researchers should consult these documents throughout the research process and training sessions with volunteers will reflect these standards.
To support the collection of research data, researchers will submit their sources using a live Google doc.
Step 5: Finalising ToR and drafting interview questions
Once the researchers have submitted all of their sources, Asylos’s UK Programme Manager(s) will generate a report using Microsoft Word. Whilst editing the report, the Programme Manager(s) will finalise the ToR and arrange the findings according to the headings that were identified. Whilst doing so, the Programme Manager(s) should assess which topics do not seem to be adequately covered in existing COI and consider where expert evidence would be particularly helpful in order to fill these gaps, for example where there is a total absence of COI, a lack of corroborative COI or where there is contradictory COI.
Once the gaps have been identified, Asylos’s Programme Manager(s) will draft a list of interview questions for stakeholders to send alongside the ToR for review. The interview questions will address the gaps identified and will be carefully phrased to generate the most accurate and useful answers. These will be approved by the project steering committee.
Step 6: Identifying interviewees / stakeholders
The aim is to identify stakeholders that have extensive professional experience or recently published credible research on the topic and those that have recently been in the country of research.
The EU Common Guidelines on (Joint) Fact Finding missions suggest that:
Possible sources may include academics, research institutes and think tanks, NGOs, INGOs, UN agencies, experienced news reporters and journalists, community leaders or other representatives, religious authorities, or political parties, government representatives
It is important that a variety of sources are identified and interviewed so that information can be cross checked
The guidelines state “try to avoid sources with too similar agendas, standpoints, backgrounds and interests, which can be a challenge – especially when using the ‘Snowballing’. It is generally useful to consult at least three different sources that are independent of each other on each main topic of the ToR”
It also suggests that interviewing mid-level staff, rather than those in more senior roles, may be more helpful as they are likely to have more experience working on the ground / in the field.
Asylos will source relevant stakeholders by reference to those cited in UK case law, those having published academic material on the issue in question (e.g. JSTOR search), those recommended by the Statelessness Forum and Refugee Legal Group, the European Network on Statelessness (ENS), the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion (ISI) Electronic Immigration Network (EIN), and the Refugee Rights in Exile Programme. Other project partners with relevant specialist knowledge may also be consulted.
Relevant organisations will be sourced and relevant representatives from these identified by reference to human rights material or media sources, for example published on COI databases such as the Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation’s (ACCORD) ecoi.net, UNHCR’s Refworld or Reliefweb.
Asylos will also seek recommendations from their respective boards of trustees and networks of legal representatives. All individuals and organisations contacted will be asked to recommend other potential stakeholders for interview.
We will include in the final report a list of all places in which we looked for stakeholders. All researchers will be required to keep a record of any websites, organisations or other sources consulted when identifying stakeholders.
In order to assess the validity of individuals and organisations as a potential source, the following questions will be considered:
Who is the source and do they have specific knowledge / experience which makes them have expertise on the topic?
What context do they work in and to what extent might this context influence them or create any bias?
How does the source formulate any information they present? Is it presented in an objective, neutral and transparent way?
It is anticipated that all stakeholders with the relevant knowledge/experience in question may be contacted for an interview unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. It is our aim to conduct at least 5 interviews per report, from a range of different disciplines. Given that not all stakeholders will respond, a maximum of 15 will be initially contacted by email requesting an interview. Asylos will aim at ensuring that represented in this 15 is a balance between those who are academics, professionals on the ground and government representatives.
Step 7: Instructing interviewees
Once a list of potential interviewees to contact has been agreed, Asylos Programme Manager(s) will send an initial email introducing the project and asking if they would consider contributing their expertise. They may ask project partners for support in making first contact with potential interviewees where their connections may increase the chance of a positive response. Where the Programme Manager(s) do not receive a response from potential interviewees, she will follow up with them by email and/or phone.
If a stakeholder provisionally agrees to take part, the coordinator sends a follow-up email attaching the following documents:
An edited version of the ‘Asylos information sheet for interviewees’ [which explains how responses will be used and how the preferred level of anonymity and confidentiality will be guaranteed]
A copy of the ToR and the interview questions.
The coordinator will also ensure that they are aware that the following can be made available to them on request:
The COI desk research report
The Strategic COI Report Methodology.
Once a stakeholder has had sight of this further information and confirms their willingness to take part, arrangements will be made for how they will submit their answers. The information sheet asks the stakeholder to indicate if they would prefer to submit their contribution in written form or through an oral interview. If possible, the coordinator will encourage each participant to agree to an interview (unless interviewees are very experienced in providing written expert testimony for RSD procedures) as we have found that interviews are more likely to wield usable information. Once these arrangements have been made, each participant is asked to provide a short bio, or link to their CV, which will be published alongside the final report.
Step 8: Interviewing stakeholders
Interviews will be conducted by Asylos’s Programme Manager(s) with assistance from Asylos volunteers where appropriate. Each interview should be recorded, unless interviewees have indicated that they do not wish for this to happen. In this case interviewers should take notes while conducting the interview. Volunteers conducting the interviews are asked to stick to the following guidelines:
At the beginning of each interview, the interviewer should start by introducing themselves, thanking the interviewee for taking part, and asking for permission to record the interview. Once this has been agreed they should check that the interviewees have received, and have reference to, the report containing our findings from the desk research and have read and understood ‘Asylos information sheet for interviewees’ (contained in appendix 2) which sets out our recommendations for supplying their evidence. All interviewees have received these guidelines but should be reminded of following key points during the introduction:
Interviewees should not attempt to answer any questions which fall outside of their expertise or about which they have insufficient information
Interviewees should make clear if the information they are providing is based on direct experience or other evidence throughout the interview
If interviewees have obtained the information from other sources they should make sure they confirm where they obtained that information
Interviewees should not withhold any information on the basis it may detract from their view, rather if interviewees are aware of information conflicting with their views, they should be asked to acknowledge it and explain why their opinion departs from this information.
Before launching into the questions, the interviewer should double check how the source wants to be referenced in the final report and whether or not they would prefer to be anonymous. The interviewee will have already indicated this in their Confidentiality and Anonymity agreement, so this serves to ensure that interviewees are still in agreement with what they initially indicated.
Once the introduction is over the interviewer may commence asking questions, working through the questions in a structured and methodical way. Whilst doing so, volunteers are asked to pay attention to the following points on interview techniques:
Ensure that your manner remains impartial at all times. Do not use ‘leading questions’
Be mindful that certain topics might be sensitive to ask
Do not be afraid to interrupt! This may mean asking for clarification or politely suggesting to move on to the next question if the interviewee goes off topic or it becomes apparent they do have the appropriate expertise or sufficient information to speak authoritatively on the topic
If it is unclear what information the interviewee is basing their statements on, seek clarification
The EU common guidelines states -
“Additionally, it may also be useful to ask a respondent to clarify or give more factual background to support a statement. This will often be the case where a declaratory statement or Policy position has been given on a particular topic. Requesting additional factual information to backup a statement or position will help give a clearer perspective or a rationale to what has been said, and may also remind the respondent why they have a particular viewpoint. In some instances it may challenge their own assumptions or bring out any potential bias or advocacy on the part of the respondent in a neutral, non-confrontational way.” (Pp. 20-21)
In the interest of source validation, ask the interviewees to identify where any information they rely on can be found by our researchers after the interview.
Step 9: Citing the interviews and writing up the full report
After each interview, the interviewer will transcribe the recording in full and verbatim, with only very minor adaptations being made to enhance comprehensibility. Interview transcripts will be saved under a unique reference number, rather than using interviewees’ names if requested. The document which links interviewees’ names to each unique reference number will be password protected and only accessible to project staff. This transcript will then be returned to the interlocutor, giving them 14 days to sign it off. This transcript should then be sent to the Programme Manager which will be appended in full in the report. If the interviewee wishes certain excerpts to be made anonymous, they will be cited as such in the body of the report and not included in the appended full transcripts.
The report drafters will select relevant excerpts from the interviews and present these under the corresponding research headings in the report alongside the findings from the desk review. The coordinator should use this opportunity to add any additional COI that was mentioned in interviews and then make any further edits to the report, ensuring that the following points have been addressed:
General formatting should be in line with Asylos’s ‘research handbook’
Each source should be introduced separately with a concise summary identifying any patterns in convergence or disagreement in the sources consulted, rather than summarising the content of the sources
Ensure the list of sources consulted is complete, with access links and information about when the sources were accessed (this is crucial for the user of the report to trace back the original source)
To further aid transparency, it is crucial to provide page numbers for each excerpts to facilitate access to the original source
The final report should include a note on who instructed the interviewees and when (month and year), and a list of the documents the interviewees were provided with
A full transcript of each interview should be included as an appendix at the end of the report, excluding any excerpts that the interviewee wished to keep anonymous
Fully anonymous interviews are included as an appendix without any further identifying information
Following final edits, the report will be sent to the Steering Committee for review. The committee will use this opportunity to revise and update the findings from the desk based research. Once the committee have made their edits, the full report will be sent to each stakeholder detailing how they have been cited, with a copy of their interview transcript / written submissions, to sign off. Stakeholders should be given a 14 day deadline for this, after which we will assume that they are satisfied.
Once the report is published, interviewees can no longer withdraw but we will be able to make additions by issuing addendums, should they wish to provide more up to date sources or information which was not previously available to them.
Step 10: Dissemination
Once the report has been signed off, the Programme Manager(s) will be responsible for publishing it on Asylos’s website, ecoi.net, Refworld and EIN (Electronic Immigration Network). Efforts should also be made to promote the report through sharing the report via the Statelessness Forum and RLG mailing list. The coordinator may also consider promoting it through written blogs on websites such as Free Movement and EIN.
Step 11: Evaluation of impact
This information will be made publicly available to all, so that it can be reviewed and used by asylum seekers, Home Office case workers, legal representatives and appeal court immigration judges alike. The reports will be accessible internationally, meaning they will also be used by and influence institutions like the UNHCR and the European Union Agency for Asylum, as well as decision makers in other countries’ asylum determination systems.
Asylos will track progress and impact throughout the project cycle by:
Recording the number of downloads from its website and asking ACCORD for data from ecoi.net
Collecting feedback from Asylos’ networks of legal representatives to review how well the report met the information needed we identified, as well as how the report has been used.
Tracking how the reports have been used by decision makers (e.g. in Home Office policy documents, UK case law, EUAA reports).
Learning will be fed back into the project on an ongoing basis and an evaluation of its overall impact will be shared with interested stakeholders on its completion.