SciPost Submission Page
Smuggling critique into impact: Research design principles for critical and actionable migration research
by Maybritt Jill Alpes
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Maybritt Jill Alpes |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/mzy8h_v2 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2025-02-17 21:01 |
| Submitted by: | Alpes, Maybritt Jill |
| Submitted to: | Migration Politics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Political Science |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approaches: | Theoretical, Experimental, Observational |
Abstract
The article examines how academics can mobilize their epistemic resources to resist in the short- and medium-term migration laws and policies that violate human right principles. Despite the surge of the neo-liberal impact agenda in academia, border violence and human rights violations are increasing. Using ideal types as simplified analytical constructs, the article pleads for migration scholars to go beyond a dichotomy between applied research that is not critical and critical research that is not actionable. Critical and actionable migration research, while relevant to state actors, resists being fully shaped by their categories, processes, and temporalities, instead advancing critical structural transformations and reframes that are actionable in the short and medium-term. As such, critical and actionable migration research is not applied research, nor devoid of theoretical considerations. Against this backdrop, this article asks whether and how migration researchers can reclaim the meaning of “impact” and smuggle critique into the term. The article is based on auto-biographical explorations of what it means for an anthropologist to produce knowledge on migration from within law faculties and as policy officer and research consultant for human and refugee rights organizations. Based on this material, I argue that “impact” is nothing to be “done” once the research is completed. To engage in critical and actionable migration research, scholars should theorize transformative knowledge encounters between academics and practitioners as integral parts of the research design. After a discussion of the auto-biographical data and a conceptual discussion of transformative knowledge encounters, the article highlights three specific research design principles: (1) building innovative knowledge alliances, (2) theorizing knowledge needs, and (3) brokering the validity of truth claims.
Author comments upon resubmission
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for the detailed and constructive critique on the first version. I took the feedback very seriously and substantially revised the article.
In particular: - I rewrote the introduction, situating my intervention more clearly in existing debates on impact and defining concepts and the scope of the paper more clearly. - I wrote a new theory section in order to clarify concepts and situate the paper's contribution to academic debates on knowledge infrastructures. - I chose to delete the two sections on evidence and law as it was distracting attention from the main contribution of the paper: the three research design principles. - I clarified the three research design principles by providing more context, spelling out the applicability to other domains of actions and connecting to existing debates in scholarship. - I kept the article's title, but explained the metaphor in the introduction and conclusion.
Sincerely,
Jill
List of changes
Introduction:
Drawing on Weber, I now make it explicit that actionable and non-critical vs critical and non-actionable research are ideal types.
I deleted the example from the field of transitional justice.
I’ve added an explicit explanation of why and how I use the metaphor of “smuggling” in this article. In order to avoid contradictions, I’ve replaced the term “transparent” with “reflexive.”
I have simplified my definition of the term “critique.”
Concepts:
To allow space for explaining key concepts, I’ve deleted the notion “epistemic violence”
I have shifted up and simplified by explanation of the term “post-truth politics” and then mobilise it afterwards by directly connection I to the question of possibilities and responsibilities for academic researchers to act within this context.
I deleted concepts, such as theory of epistemic resistance.
I have taken out the following terms: “migratory justice,” “denialism” and "border justice".
Domains of action:
I specify in the introduction how political and legal processes are intertwined and that I look at the case of legal processes through the lens of the ECtHR. I am more specific now about when I draw out conclusions based on my specific case and when I explore their validity for broader processes.
I have deleted the paragraph about policy recommendations in the humanitarian sector.
Research design principles:
I have connected the discussion with anthropological literature on the use of expert knowledge in refugee status determination.
I have provided more context to examples in the section on knowledge alliances.
I clarified the general arguments that come out of my specific legal case for the third research design principle.
Conclusion:
I softened the last sentence of the conclusion and provided more context.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #2 by Tabea Scharrer (Referee 2) on 2025-3-24 (Invited Report)
Report
It was a real pleasure to read this thoroughly revised article. I am very happy to see how this article has evolved in the revision process. The argument is now much clearer and easier to follow, and the examples for understanding the argument are well placed and convincing. Furthermore, I really like the concepts of 'transformative knowledge encounters' and 'innovative knowledge alliances', as they represent an actionable way out of a situation in which many migration researchers find themselves. And many thanks to the author for indeed taking the reviewers' suggestions indeed seriously and responding to many of the points raised, thus showing the reviewers that their input is valued.
I only have some small suggestions for rounding off the article:
- the abstract could still be a bit sharper so that it becomes clearer that 'critical and actionable migration research' is your own approach, also the 2nd sentence was not really clear to me
- in the introduction, the argument could also be introduced a bit more clearly - on p. 3 you refer to 'dichotomies', which were not described as such before and there are some terms that are introduced rather suddenly and only explained later (e.g. smuggling on p. 3); on p. 2 there was a long list of references and I wasn't really sure for what they were needed
- the second half of the last sentence before 'theorizing transformative knowledge encounters' (p. 6) is not necessary in my opinion
- on p. 7 you refer to 'transformative knowledge encounters' as transforming political and legal processes, but they also do transform knowledge, right?
- border violence is often mentioned, but maybe needs an explanation what exactly is meant (it is probably used in the sense of a wider border?)
- the article argues that 'impact' is not something to be done after research - while I agree, I also wonder if this argument is not coming out of a reflection on earlier projects which did not have such 'inclusive' research design, hence 'impact' also came after research when thinking in the longer research cycle
- on p. 10 an ERC project is mentioned, perhaps referring to its focus would suffice
- there are still a few repetitions (of words or sentences with similar content, e.g., p. 14, 1st paragraph or p. 16)
- the last sentence now reads wonderfully
Recommendation
Publish (meets expectations and criteria for this Journal)
Report
I would like to thank the author for the revised version of the article. I appreciate the careful engagement with the feedback and acknowledge that all the comments made in my previous review have been addressed.
I have no further points to raise, with the exception of one comment regarding the statement about the burden of proof in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (p. 16).
The sentence “This mechanism for the validation of truth claims implies a de facto assumption that states have fulfilled their legal obligations” suggests that this implication follows necessarily from a logical progression. However, this framing risks obscuring the fact that an equally valid assumption could point in the opposite direction. If courts recognize that applicants often face systemic barriers to producing evidence, while states both control the (non)production of evidence and have a vested interest in withholding access to potentially incriminating information, then one could just as reasonably argue that the more logical default would be a de facto assumption of non-compliance. In situations where the state possesses a structural advantage—through control of evidence, access, and narrative—and where that advantage can be used to conceal rights violations, a more reasonable or justifiable “default” assumption might be skepticism toward the state's compliance, rather than presuming it.
If I understand the author correctly, the argument is that courts in practice rely on the assumption of state compliance. If that is the case, it would be useful to explicitly acknowledge that this is an empirical observation of judicial behavior—not a necessary or inevitable consequence of the evidentiary framework – even in light of international courts’ need to respect the sovereignty of member states. The subsequent suggestion to shift the burden of proof onto states aligns with this line of thinking. Still, it would be worthwhile to reflect a bit more on the foundational assumption itself—before proposing solutions to the disadvantages it creates for applicants.
Once again, I thank the author for their thoughtful revisions. Apart from the comment on the burden of proof, I consider the paper ready for publication and do not need to see it again.
Recommendation
Publish (meets expectations and criteria for this Journal)