The role of academics as refugee policy advocates: lessons from Australia

ABSTRACT

A significant challenge faced by refugees, scholars and advocates is the achievement of policy change toward a humanitarian approach for asylum-seekers. This article examines the interconnectedness between academia and policy. Firstly, it provides a context for this advocacy. Secondly, it examines how and why academics seek to influence policy and how scholars assess their effectiveness. Thirdly, it interrogates how academics could be more effective while working alongside refugees and other advocates. In so doing, it presents Australia as a case study from which lessons can be learnt. It considers how scholars might engage with policymakers and provides considerations on the past and future of academic advocacy.

KEYWORDS:

• Refugee advocacy
• asylum and refugee policy
• Australian refugee policy
• academic advocates
• community-engaged scholarship

1. Introduction

In many parts of the world, asylum-seekers and refugees experience difficulties in achieving humanitarian protection. Restrictive policies are becoming more widespread and at the same time refugees, scholars and advocates face significant challenges when seeking policy change toward a humanitarian approach for asylum-seekers.

This article assesses the role of academics in advocacy on refugee policy. Firstly, we provide a brief overview of academic advocacy and present a case study of the Australian context by utilizing data gathered in Australia in early 2023. Following, we present the questionnaire’s methodology and analyse the challenges of engagement with policymakers in discussions of refugee rights. We ask how academics might be more effective as advocates, working both alongside people of refugee experience and with other advocates. Finally, we provide considerations on the past and future of academic advocacy. We anticipate that this research will be of benefit to academics, policymakers, and civil society, by providing an understanding of the impact of expert knowledge and the role of academic advocacy.

2. The academic advocate: engagement

Academics choose to be advocates across a range of spheres. There is considerable scholarly literature addressing academic advocacy broadly (Schalet, Tropp, and Troy 2020; Koirala-Azad and Fuentes 2009; Ellison and Eatman 2008), within Australia (Larsen et al. 2023; Flood, Martin, and Dreher 2013; Casey and Dalton 2006), and also concerning refugees (Lenette et al. 2020; Fehsenfeld and Levinsen 2019; Neumann et al. 2014; Hartley et al. 2013). Many academics wish to make their research available to policymakers to bring about policy and/or legal change (Samuels 2020; Malbon, Carey, and Dickinson 2018), while others intend to achieve social change (Cann and De Meulenaere 2020) that seeks, for example, a more humanitarian approach to refugee protection (Pittaway and Bartolomei 2013). A selection of scholars choose to actively lobby policymakers through their research (Stoddart, Simpson, and Haire 2020). Across these varied roles, academic advocates can utilize their expertise or position to challenge or support governments to design improved policies, regulations, and procedures to meet international legal commitments.

Whereas some academics pursue research with an advocacy purpose, others oppose academic activism and criticise those who draw on their scholarly work to pursue political, social or legal change. One common argument against scholarly activism refers to the instrumentalization of academic inquiry and the idea that pursuing knowledge should be valued for its own sake (Komárek 2021 in Stone 2023). Another key argument is that undertaking research for advocacy purposes can impose predetermined values and political biases that compromise the integrity of academic research (Khaitan 2022). While acknowledging these arguments, we concur that in the field of refugee policy studies “academics have the potential to exert a positive influence on political leaders and international organisations through the quality of the research they undertake” (Crisp 2018, 8). The potential positive impact of academic research can stimulate a moral responsibility in scholars to pursue this type of research because academics in this field can have tangible impact on the lives of those seeking asylum by choosing the pathway of academic advocacy. We do not claim that all academics should undertake research with advocacy purposes, of course, yet we acknowledge that this type of research is valuable and forms part of the academic freedom to pursue research without censorship.

In this article, academic advocacy refers to the type of advocacy undertaken by university academics that critically analyses government policy, regulations, and procedures in order to change or improve policy. This article examines the potential epistemic benefits of the deliberate pursuit of research outcomes with real-world impact through advocacy – seeking evidence-based policy. This type of research may influence governments and public servants in their policymaking, yet it can also provide knowledge essential to effective government and proper democratic accountability (Stone 2023, 12). These scholars have been referred to as “scholar-advocates,” “scholar activists,” “intellectual activists” and “academic activists” (Stone 2023; Kenny 2021; Lundberg 2022, 248; Rynor 2023).

Following Stone’s approach (2023, 3), it is important to note that there is a clear conceptual distinction between the activities undertaken in academic advocacy and the activities undertaken by activists as citizens or in a non-scholarly capacity. However, this distinction is not always easy to apply in practice. Our research demonstrates that participants undertaking academic activism refer to a wide range of activities that might go beyond the medium of “pure scholarship”. Moreover, data collected for this article appears to challenge Khaitan’s position, and that of other sceptics, which regards undertaking scholarly work with an activist motivation as compromising research integrity, posing a systemic risk to the health of the academy (Khaitan 2022).

The findings of this study reveal a combination of the four descriptors among the activities undertaken by participants. This article utilizes the term “academic advocate” and understands that to be an advocate is “to publicly support or suggest an idea, development, or way of doing something” (Cambridge Dictionary n.d.). Academic advocates possess specialized knowledge and seek to challenge policymakers and debate. In this article, we utilized the term “activist” solely when scholars referred to themselves in that way and/or to maintain the originality of participants’ quotes.

University academics possess the skills to conduct evidence-based critical analysis and articulate arguments. They have access to resources that enable them to offer expert, evidence-based, recommendations for improving policy and governance. This expertise renders academics valuable resources for governments and policymakers. Despite this, academics often face constraints such as time limitations, heavy workloads and insecurity of tenure. Some may prefer private engagement to public discourse on important issues. There might also be a reluctance to engage in public debate or to confront potential criticism on social media or from politicians. Additionally, some academics may be hesitant to adopt an advocacy role within the university sector.

However, Ladegaard and Phipps (2020, 72) argue that intellectuals have a responsibility to be critical public voices. Drawing from Edward Said's earlier work, Ladegaard and Phipps (2020, 72) assert that “there is no such thing as a private intellectual”, suggesting that once intellectuals publish their ideas, they are a part of the public sphere and are accountable for their intellectual contributions. Despite this theoretical imperative, in practice, being a public intellectual or having a public profile can be difficult, as we illustrate in this article.

Once scholars determine that they wish to advocate for policy change, there is the task of dissemination of research and policy proposals. Many research outputs have a relatively demarcated audience. However, academic advocates can provide a broader platform to present pertinent research. For example, they take their expertise well beyond established venues such as journals or conferences. Scholar-advocate Cindy Blackstock (Rynor 2023) suggests, “Let’s do something and express ourselves in ways people can actually understand. And listen to the lived experience, get behind the community.” This is a key feature of academic advocacy in this article.

Academics are “in a unique position of having knowledge, research findings and expertise to illustrate the need for an alternative approach” (Murray et al. 2018). In many cases, this aligns with Flood et al.’s (2013, 3–4) approach “as a means to inform progressive social change.” Scholars may actively conduct research for social or policy change. They do not do so in a vacuum. They may “access national and international networks to examine options that do not feature detention, closed borders, and racist immigration systems” (Murray et al. 2018) such as those that exist in Australia (Flood, Martin, and Dreher 2013, 3–4). Academics can seek to shape, reshape or guide debates in the public arena as well as setting out policy agendas and seeking policy change, based on evidence in their research. They provide commentary in the media, and expert advice for policy-making processes, including as short-term advisors or longer-term “seconded experts” (Ruhs, Tamas, and Palme 2019, 6). It is not uncommon for academics to move from academia to policymaking or policy institutes.

They engage in teaching, as noted by Flood, Martin, and Dreher (2013), and in challenging power relations in policy. These approaches characterize academic advocacy and feature in the survey responses we examine. It is worthy of note that academics present evidence-based policy reports to policymakers and in the public domain regularly.

Academic research can contribute to broader understandings of framing and narrative-shaping. This includes methods to change public opinion and develop strategies to shape or reject a specific narrative. Shaping policy agendas is not only a sharing of expertise, but also engaging with public debate in, and with, the media (Loughnan and Murray 2022; Soderstrom and O’Sullivan 2020). Amplified public dissemination of academic research have the potential to recast public narratives and add legitimacy to demands for policy change. An increased presence of academics in public debate could help to hold governments accountable to policy promises. As we observe in this article, it can be difficult to interact with policymakers and parliamentarians who may not wish to respond to requests for more humane policies. Our findings reveal that academic advocates regard their research and actions as having the potential to change mindsets and influence policy. Therefore, they are willing to continue working towards changing disproportionate policies that impact asylum-seekers.

Turning now to our case study of Australia. Following the election of the Australian Labor¹ Party (ALP) to government in 2023, a notable policy shift occurred: the humanitarian intake of refugees was to be increased from 17,875 to 20,000 per year (Giles 2023). This decision garnered positive reception from refugees, NGOs, civil society, and academics (Australian Red Cross 2023; RCOA 2023). This announcement, which came after a change to visa policy in December 2022, allowed holders of Temporary Protection visas (TPV) and/or Safe Haven Enterprise visas (SHEV) to be eligible to apply for a permanent Resolution of Status (RoS) visa starting in early 2023 (Department of Home Affairs 2023). This marked a significant shift towards a framework for more humane approaches to refugees, following two decades of cruel and inhumane policies by governments of both sides of politics (ASRC 2023b; ICC 2020; Moran 2020; McAdam and Chong 2014; Pedersen, Fozdar, and Kenny 2012).

Although advocates across Australia welcomed these improvements, many challenges remain (ASRC 2023a; SCoA 2022). For example, regarding the ALP government’s commitment to incrementally raising the intake to 27,000 humanitarian visas, as outlined in the 2021 ALP National Platform (ALP 2021, 123). Advocates, who have tirelessly called for policy reform for years (Lenette, Baker, and Hirsch 2019; Tazreiter 2017; Buckley et al. 2015), view these recent advancements as significant steps forward. Among these advocates are academic scholars who have actively contributed to these efforts (Neumann et al. 2014). This article seeks to evaluate the role of academics in advocacy on refugee policy, with a case study of Australia.

Australia’s refugee policies have been the subject of considerable criticism over two decades (Hartley et al. 2013; Gosden 2006), including trenchant international condemnation from the United Nations (2022), Amnesty International (2016), and Médecins sans Frontières (2018). This sustained criticism has prompted civil society and scholars, including those with lived experience of seeking asylum, to bring about policy change and a more humanitarian approach (Radford et al. 2023; Gleeson and Yacoub 2021). A number of academics have actively engaged in advocacy roles and contributed to public and media debate on the matter (Leroy 2023; Loughnan and Murray 2022; Markus and Arunachalam 2018; McAdam and Chong 2014). To understand how academics have endeavoured to advocate for, and with, refugees, as well as how they perceive their roles in this context, a questionnaire was distributed to Australian academics involved in advocacy on refugee policy. This questionnaire aimed to investigate their strategies and perspectives, shedding light on their motivations, their challenges, and perceptions of their impact and effectiveness.

There are several research centres² and research networks³ within Australian universities, and a small but growing body of analysis regarding academics’ engagement in policy and the impact of expert knowledge in refugee policy in Australia (e.g. Fleay et al. 2019). Academic advocates publish in online outlets and blogs,⁴ and write parliamentary submissions, letters to policymakers and petitions (Academics for Refugees 2020; 2014; Pedersen and Fleay 2012). Ghezelbash and Dorostkar (2023) contribute to this growing literature by arguing that, to advocate successfully for more humane refugee and asylum policies, academics need to develop a deeper empirical understanding of the politics of refugee law and policymaking. A seminar on academic engagement with civil society and refugees provided “insights into what civil society actors regard as the most effective ways that academics can support and contribute to refugee advocacy and assistant efforts” (Soderstrom and O’Sullivan 2020), which align with international literature advice on engagement with policymakers (Lundberg 2022; Oliver and Cairney 2019). This article endeavours to build on these studies and contribute to the existing body of literature focusing on academic advocacy of refugee policy in Australia and potential lessons for academic advocates internationally.

2.1. Methodology

We designed our survey to understand efforts to translate academic research and influence to policy. We garnered academics’ perspectives on how they aim to influence government policies. We provided a questionnaire to academics working in this field in Australia. This questionnaire asked about academics’ specific research, their roles, the way academics use research to influence policymaking and their effectiveness when engaging with policymakers. The data collected through the online questionnaire hosted on Qualtrics provided empirical evidence regarding the role and influence of academic advocates. This information enabled us to assess the role of academics as advocates in refugee policy, and the different ways that academics engage on refugee policy in Australia.

In early 2023, the questionnaire was distributed to 125 Australian academics specialising in refugee policy and advocacy across a range of disciplines and areas of specialization.⁵ The criteria for selecting academics for the questionnaire were the following: evidence of activism in the public domain, including: publication of articles or reports on refugee issues; appearance in the media or articles published in the media or interviewed by the media; leadership in a university centre that actively advocated for refugees; leadership in Academics for Refugees; scholars who disseminated open letters to politicians on refugee issues; speakers at events as refugees or with refugees; leadership in efforts to ensure access to university education and/or scholarship for refugee students This constituted an accessible, relevant and highly appropriate sample. Scholars who wrote on these issues but had not advocated publicly were excluded, if there was no evidence of their work being in the public domain. Before the recipient list was finalised, we carried out a thorough search of these sources, updating university affiliation and expertise, in order to ensure the inclusion of academic activists in the public domain. University websites; specialist groups; research centres; online blogs and media reports were comprehensively searched.

No academic discipline was excluded. The disciplines and areas of research of the recipients of the questionnaire were: Political Science; Criminology; Public Policy; Sociology; Law; Medicine; Public Health; Psychiatry; Psychology; Education; History; Geography; Media Studies; Literature Studies; Communication Studies; Human Rights; Gender Studies; Development Studies; Anthropology; Cultural Studies; Population Studies; Border Studies; Forced Migration; Refugee Studies and Sociolegal Studies.

The objective of this research was to capture the opinions, perspectives, and experiences of academics from Australian universities engaged in refugee policy and advocacy while acknowledging the limitations of the fact that some potential respondents had chosen not to respond or had recently retired.

This research has significance for an international audience interested in refugee policy and also in advocacy. The Australian approach to managing refugee policy has influenced other Western nations, especially the United Kingdom (Matera, Tubakovic, and Murray 2023). Consequently, academic-advocates worldwide may find value in this research to enrich their own understanding and influence their experiences in research and policymaking regarding refugee migration.

The questionnaire contained factual questions and multiple-choice and open-ended questions. In total, there were 47 respondents, a 37.6% response rate. All recipients participated on a voluntary basis and with their written informed consent. All responses were anonymous and any contextual details that could reveal information about the participants were removed during the analysis. The main method for analysis was descriptive analysis of qualitative research data, which identified both common experiences of academics and differences of advocacy, according to the type of policy changes being sought. For example, academics seeking to end offshore detention might undertake different approaches to those seeking access for refugees to education or healthcare.

We do not specifically examine social activism as protest, but rather scholarly engagement with public policy with a motivation to pursue specific social, political, or legal change (Stone 2023). Drawing on the work of Lavis et al. (2003, 243), our analysis focuses on the opportunities available to academics, which include developing actionable messages for decision-makers, enhancing knowledge-uptake skills among target audiences, cultivating knowledge-transfer activities, and evaluating the impact of knowledge-transfer activities. We offer preliminary insights into how academics aim to influence or transform policy by leveraging evidence to transform knowledge production, mobilisation, and decision-making processes. By utilizing data collected through an online questionnaire, this article illustrates the relationship between academic advocacy and policy in Australia.

2.2. The Australian context of academic advocates

For over 20 years, successive Australian Governments enacted harsh policies towards asylum-seekers and refugees, and during this time some academics have chosen an advocacy role in seeking policy change. Both coalition Liberal/National Governments and Labor Governments benefited electorally from harsh measures to manage refugee movements into Australia. Their control of this policy, and unwillingness to provide adequate refugee protection, motivated some academics to contest inhumane practices. The ongoing nature of detention, punitive practices toward asylum-seekers, and the long wait for visa status determination contribute to a sense of fatigue over years of advocacy, as little policy change resulted from contestation. Yet there is some cautious optimism evident in the responses.

It is important to note that the questionnaire was distributed nine months after the change of government on 22 May 2022. A government change created a window of opportunity for advocates to seek policy change. Firstly, there are new priorities and agendas presented by the new leaders. Secondly, the significant media attention and public interest in the incoming government provide an opportunity to draw attention to specific causes and to mobilize civil society’s support. Thirdly, the government’s political will, particularly if it campaigned on specific promises, creates a space for fresh engagement by academics, refugees, and civil society. Fourthly, a new government may be willing to consider fresh perspectives.

In Australia, advocates hoped for an end to the situation of despair regarding Australia’s asylum policies, based on the Labor Government’s campaign promises (ASRC 2022). Our research was undertaken at a time when people with lived refugee experience, academic-advocates and indications from the new government were focusing on improving asylum policy. A former refugee and human rights activist, Thanush Selvarasa, commented: “For the last 9 years, we have been suffering. It is time to rebuild our lives and make a better future” (ASRC 2022). The election of an increased number of Greens, who have always supported refugees, and a significant number of independent parliamentarians opposed to indefinite and arbitrary detention, also suggested that policy changes were possible. Although the Labor Government made some positive commitments (Asylum Insight 2023), much remains to be done to implement a more humanitarian approach towards asylum-seekers. Our questionnaire provides some comments on this concern.

The first questions asked about age, gender, and the type of engagement undertaken. The demographic data illustrates that most participants are women, and the largest cohort of individuals is between 35 and 44 years old. We next asked questions regarding how academics engage, and with whom, and here we provided multiple choice and open-ended responses, as presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. What is your main focus regarding refugees?

Participants who selected the open-ended answer “Other” indicated the following topics: international law; regulation; policy and jurisprudence; regional responses to refugee migration; LGBTQI+ refugees and gender dimensions of refugee policies and experiences; country-specific conditions; providing expert testimonies; public and political opinion about asylum seekers and refugees; Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures; language barriers and communication difficulties links with colonial practices of detention of other groups such as First Nations Peoples; and direct involvement with the UNHCR.

Respondents then provided insights on their specific policy focus, with multiple choice and open-ended options provided, in Figure 2.⁶

Figure 2. What is the specific focus of your engagement on policy?

Participants who selected the open-ended answer “Other” provided additional focus on pathways to protection; statelessness; improving RSD procedures; the application of legal principles and rights of refugees and Australia’s international role. These data indicate that Australian academics attempt to address major concerns with a national and international focus. Moreover, the contextual data shows that academics from Australian universities work across a wide range of topics. A majority concentrates on narratives about refugees and the effects of Australia’s border protection and detention policies. This is not surprising, as Australia’s governments have for many years used derogatory language and corrosive narratives towards asylum-seekers and refugees to justify disproportionate policy measures. Academic advocates continue to work towards transforming these narratives (Loughnan and Murray 2022).

3. Types of policy-research engagement: an assessment

We queried how academics seek to influence policy and assess their effectiveness. Firstly, participants were asked about their engagement on refugee policy outside of academia and the ways that they advocate. Secondly, the questionnaire asked about the methods utilized to communicate their research findings to policymakers. Thirdly, the questions focused on the impact of academic research. The response data indicate that most academic advocates regard their advocacy as constituting part of their academic role. Respondents rely on several peaceful avenues to advocacy. Moreover, whereas most participants (68%) rely on traditional or conventional forms of communicating their research, 32% provided examples of engagement including film and media; participatory media, including photography; drawings; visual and storytelling methods; as well as “pushing at the limits of ‘academic’ prose to create maximum possible effective impact,” including “writing in a semi-poetic style, using images, and/or including refugee artworks or poetry.” Furthermore, many participants stated that they have been involved in academic advocacy on refugee policy for many years.

3.1. Engagement outside of academia and methods of advocacy

Most academic advocate respondents (89%) work in collaborative groups, including political party-led groups; and with refugees; civil society groups; NGOs, family, and friends. This is not surprising as there is evidence that advocacy is more effective and sustainable when working in a group, or what experts call “coalition building,” a strategy of “bringing together individuals, groups, and organizations with mutual interests, to amplify their influence” (Gen and Wright 2020, 26). Based on these insights, it is evident that collaborating with others is the most effective strategy for fostering constructive engagement with policymakers and civil society. An example of this is the high-quality research and the high-level advocacy facilitated by Australian research networks and centres noted earlier.

In describing their engagement outside of academia, some participants regard this as part of their academic role. One respondent is a “member of a board of refugee advocacy organisation, co-convenor of state and national collectives in support of people seeking asylum” and refers to this as straddling “both my work in academia as well as outside of it.” The data showed that even outside of academia, academic advocates utilize their expertise to engage in a wide range of activities. Some respondents explained that their involvement is through civil society organizations; research institutes; meeting directly with policymakers; and writing letters and emails to politicians. Additionally, they speak at conferences and panel discussions, and attend community meetings, vigils, and demonstrations. This comment illustrates the interconnected nature of academic roles, and the wide array of activities academics may engage in, with one response being:

I see my engagement continuous with and part of my academic role, it has included providing expertise to campaigns, building university-based campaigns, organizing colleagues to participate in actions or public engagement or doing this myself, intervening into public debates where time/capacity allows and significantly, actively collaborating with local NGOs in my field and other colleagues to engage on specific issues/needs/priorities for refugees and asylum seekers.

Many respondents had been active in advocacy for years, and one

had a strong and varied engagement on refugee policy issues since at least 2003, including attending rallies and supporting/visited people in immigration detention over many years. I have also been a volunteer paralegal at a refugee law community legal centre.

This long-standing engagement became essential to their community and civic engagement activities, and a respondent wrote of being regularly engaged “through numerous community organisations, church groups and schools for more than 20 years.” Both examples highlight mechanisms utilized that might assist in gaining access to policymakers.

When respondents were asked about the means of participation in advocacy, the options provided were “working with not-for-profit organisations” with a 29% response rate; “with a group of academics” with 24%; “with refugees” with 18%; “with research institutes” and “alone” with an equal 11% response rate, and “other” with 7%. This data suggests that advocacy in Australia is primarily in collaboration with NGOs.

3.2. Communication of research findings

When it comes to determining to whom research knowledge should be transmitted, Lavis et al. (2003, 225) proposed three strategies. Firstly, “who can act on the basis of the available research knowledge”; secondly, “who can influence those who can act,” and, thirdly, “with which of these target audience(s) we can expect to have the most success and which messages pertain most directly to each of them.” With these in mind, the questionnaire provided a list of multiple-choice answers and an open-ended option that enquired about the forms of engagement deployed. The responses, in Figure 3, indicate that sending reports to policymakers is their most frequent approach to communication.

Figure 3. How do you communicate your research findings in an accessible manner to policy makers?

Secondly, participants engage with policymakers through the media, by writing news articles and providing commentary on television. Less frequent actions were letter writing to policymakers and contacting them by phone on a regular basis. However, these approaches align only in part with those proposed by international and domestic literature. Oliver and Cairney (2019, 3) propose that academics should prioritize effective dissemination by making data publicly available and providing clear summaries and syntheses of issues and potential solutions. They also recommend using a variety of communication channels such as social media, blogs, and policy briefs. Further, they advise that academics ensure accessibility to policy actors for follow-up questions and to write in a manner that is understandable to general audiences without oversimplifying complex concepts. Australian academics, including Graycar (2023) indicate that traditional forms of academic communication, such as publications in prestigious journals or the production of complex reports, are unlikely to be read by government officials. Instead, policymakers are more accustomed to receiving “policy briefs” or “one-pagers” containing concise information, typically including a single graph or table along with a brief paragraph of explanation, and a link to the relevant research (Graycar 2023). Graycar (2023) also emphasizes the importance of research that offers clear evidence of effective strategies, their contexts, and underlying mechanisms. This concurs with Ghezelbash and Dorostkar’s (2023, 8) counsel to undertake “empirical research evaluating the impact and success (or failure) or refugee and asylum policies” as “a valuable evidence base for reform advocacy.”

Participants informed us: “I don’t convey my own research but do write to policymakers – usually around larger questions of policy and in collaboration with others.” Another has “co-written hundreds of letters over the years documenting impacts of government policies on people seeking asylum.” Responses such as these illustrate that academic advocates actively seek to provide advice on, and seek improvements in, refugee policymaking.

Finally, respondents engage via the media in several ways. They write for online platforms such as The Conversation; the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH); Guardian Australia. This includes writing academic blog pieces and other publications on research findings for the media, especially during election campaigns. At times, academic advocacy encompassed provision of “quotes to journalists in ABC News, Guardian Australia, SMH, and SBS [Special Broadcasting Service].” Furthermore, some participants speak on television and radio. Another “published news articles, magazine stories, as well as spoken about my research on local and national radio programs.” Additionally, respondents referred to “Other” ways of communicating such as presenting to audiences including decision-makers and senior members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The data shows that key activities include speaking at an event; letter writing; submission or dissemination of a policy report or recommendation; campus activities and attending a rally, demonstration, or other public events. Advocacy mechanisms deployed by respondents reflect a mixed approach that includes activities undertaken in academic advocacy but also activities utilized by activists in a non-academic capacity. Aligning with Stone’s claim, the data highlights that the distinction between these types of activities is not always clear in practice (Stone 2023).

3.3. Reflections about the impact of advocacy research

Participants were asked about the impact of their research in contesting harsh border-protection policies. The questionnaire allowed for open-ended responses, with most respondents expressing confidence that their work contributes to understanding the harmful effects of refugee policies. Several key themes emerged from their responses. Firstly, many participants stressed the value of academic research in criticising government policies and laws. They emphasised that academics offer expert advice on how to improve policies, which can be effective in keeping issues in the public domain and maintaining pressure for compliance with international norms. Secondly, respondents noted a lack of accurate information and some misinformation in the media. They suggested that academic research could play a crucial role in informing the public and students about these issues. One respondent mentioned that “[u]sually when people learn [about the] Australian cruel border policy regime against refugees, they do criticize them.” This could lead to greater empathy. Thirdly, there is a conviction that research is essential for documenting the effects of policy. However, respondents acknowledged that it could take time for this research to have an impact and be accepted. They also mentioned challenges in accessing policymakers and the media, with some finding the online space “daunting.” Fourthly, participants highlighted the importance of academic collaboration with asylum-seekers and refugees, to provide policymakers with evidence of “the impact of border protection policies and laws,” especially when working “alongside people with refugee experience, community groups, and NGOs.” This constitutes important policy-based evidence. Finally, respondents praised the consistent advocacy efforts of research centres such as the Kaldor Centre and Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness, regarding them as “effective in keeping the issues before the public, in the public debate, correcting misrepresentations of facts, locating Australian concerns in their broader international context.” Overall, respondents regard academic research as essential for shedding light on the realities of these policies, highlighting “why it is not acceptable, and how to rectify it.”

On the value of working in this area, one academic succinctly noted benefits and positive outcomes.

Academic work can provide an important function in documenting and framing the harms of draconian and exclusionist border policies. It can also draw attention to the voices, claims and experiences of refugees, and call for alternative ways of organising social communities and practices of hospitality and asylum. That said, published academic work like journal articles have a limited, often specialised readership so can have a limited reach, unless accompanied by more accessible public pieces for a more general readership. Academic work promoting refugee rights can also be impactful through teaching, and I regularly find that studying refugee law can be a radicalising experience for my students.

Scholars were invited to provide examples of policy changes that could be attributed, at least in part, to their advocacy and research efforts, whether undertaken individually or as part of a group. More than half referred to initiatives aimed at influencing policy change and support for refugees, such as advice to the UNHCR regarding resettlement of disabled refugees; providing information to UNESCO to fill a knowledge gap in the Global Education Monitoring Report and influencing other participants in RSD processes. A respondent emphasised the collective effort to change onshore detention of children, the provision of assistance in introducing the Australian Medevac Bill, and in providing access to permanent visas for people arriving by boat, although this respondent reported more success in individual cases.

The Australian Government’s refugee policies “are currently being rethought and adjusted” in part due to sustained advocacy from the community, according to a respondent. Several respondents have been involved in lobbying for work rights for asylum seekers, community sponsorship and the removal of children from detention centres. One noted that funded settlement agencies have gaps in service, while another highlighted the creation of a student support officer role to specifically support refugee students within higher education. Respondents worked on the AAT credibility guidelines or were involved in bringing about changes to state government policies.

Additionally, respondents have been involved in bringing about changes such as granting people seeking asylum arriving by boat the right to work; access to affordable TAFE (Technical and Further Education); primary and secondary education; free hospital care; and access to public transport concessions. In some instances, they participate in public campaigns where success is incremental over time. Although there is some impact on policy change, this is not to be assumed. One respondent revealed “I have had less impact on broader policy change, and more success in relation to individual cases such as seeing a person released from immigration detention following advocacy/academic work.” Some respondents’ work has had a collective impact, rendering it difficult to separate their research from the work of refugees, people seeking asylum and community groups.

4. Challenges of engagement: findings

The questionnaire asked about the challenges that scholars face in their engagement. Some scholars speak of a major challenge “to find a balance between researching, teaching, advocacy and activism which is not always easy,” although often easier when working in a “supportive environment” (Jarosz 2013, 13). The questionnaire asked two questions about engagement with policymakers – did they encounter acceptance or reluctance by policymakers to engage and how they dealt with difficulties in persuading policymakers to accept expert recommendations. These questions aimed to gain insights into whether policymakers seek out and act on academic expertise and the contexts in which academics engage with policymakers.

Some 60% of responses indicated policymakers were generally reluctant. Participants spoke of experiences of “a devaluation of academic and other expertise in this area and instead policy making that flies in the face of existing evidence-based research, or that is politically driven by agendas not shared by research in this field” and of “many roadblocks when seeking to access the research sites of primary interest.” Some were “ignored.” Others perceived a “high degree of reluctance/evasion from conservative side of politics.” A further challenge was policymakers who “usually listen but see little action” and the “highly politicized policy space” resulting in “significant reluctance.” A smaller group (10%) stated that it depended on the type of government or politician. One commented, “It is a varied response from individual politicians or Parliamentary committees, depending on the government of the day.” Some 30% found policymakers “willingly engage” including recent “positive discussion with the Minister for Immigration” and approaches to local MPs.

There is discussion in the academic literature of difficulties in connecting research with policy and persuading policymakers to consider or accept expert recommendations (Bird 2021; Florence and Martiniello 2005; Lavis et al. 2003). The questionnaire asked about participants’ experiences. Some seek allies or supporters to advocate for the implementation of research findings into policy. There was consensus among respondents that it can be difficult to persuade policymakers to adopt research findings into policy, and some suggested strategies of seeking senior champions working within, and alongside, government systems, and building support from civil society. Many indicated that engagement was for the long haul, there is a need to be patient and not become disheartened by setbacks. Others suggested that research can contribute to social movement and civil society campaigns to place pressure on governments. Overall, the responses indicate that achieving policy change can be challenging, while stressing the importance to persevere and seek innovative ways to build support and pressure for change.

Participants also expressed a degree of frustration: “the problem is to make policymakers aware of findings. Activists have a role here, via letters, email, meetings etc. But even if parliamentary aides do read stuff one sends, do they pass it onto ministers?” and “We all talk and talk and talk about it, provide justifications, evidence, great suggestions, but very little of this is ever taken up because it is not politically expedient for either of the major parties.” One elaborated that they “explain and explain and repeat, but we very rarely make any traction. It is exhausting.”

Advocacy literature advises academics to “reflect continuously” about whether they should engage, if they want to engage, and to consider if it is working (Oliver and Cairney 2019, 4). Moreover, academics “may be a good fit in the policy arena” and “enjoy finding solutions to complex problems,” or are driven “by a passion greater than simply adding another item to your CV.” Our research findings uncover evidence of both impact and frustration: there is considerable dedication, even passion, to present solutions to harsh asylum policies. Consistent with Jarosz’s research, our findings indicate that “bearing witness” entails an ethical responsibility for researchers to take action and disseminate information through writing reports, making recommendations, issuing open letters or hosting forums on human rights issues (Jarosz 2013, 15).

5. The future of policy impact and advocacy

Despite the challenges discussed above, there is a shared commitment among academic advocates to continue with their work and advocacy to improve refugee policy. When asked how academic advocates might become more effective, three key imperatives emerged that can serve as recommendations for fostering constructive engagement. Firstly, it is imperative to work alongside people with lived experience and create strong partnerships or collectives to engage better with NGOs and public figures. Secondly, there is the need to render research less “disenchanting, complex and even critical” for governments and engage with how government institutions work (Florence and Martiniello 2005, 3) and, thirdly, increased support by higher education institutions is required, in both the recognition of advocacy work and the allocation of funding. These themes find resonance in the literature on academic advocacy (Bird 2021; Gardner et al. 2021; Harley and Hobbs 2020; Hayton 2018) and are considered below.

5.1. Working alongside people with lived experience and creating partnerships

Nearly one-third of respondents indicated that working with people with lived experience is fundamental. Scholars and activists increasingly recognize that there is a need for more meaningful participation of refugees in decision-making processes (Lenette et al. 2020; Harley and Hobbs 2020; Milner, Alio, and Gardi 2022) and refugee leadership. Moreover, refugee advocates reinforce the need to consider non-traditional ways of engagement and of actively amplifying refugee voices (Dantas and Gower 2021).

Our findings suggest that there is alignment between scholarly literature and the participants’ contributions. This convergence highlights the significance of academic advocacy in influencing or shaping refugee policy in Australia, indicating that it is moving in a direction that could foster meaningful transformation with potential global impact.

Respondents work alongside people with lived experience due to ethical reasons and personal values seeking to challenge unconscious bias perspectives related to “white saviour” thinking. However, respondents also recognized the underrepresentation of people with refugee experience in academic positions and in development of policy that directly affects them. Academics working alongside people with lived experience support them while challenging the dehumanization that refugees face due to corrosive political discourse. A respondent commented.

I don’t think we should do our research without refugees themselves. It is simply wrong that we talk about refugees (simply as research subjects) but not as research collaborators and colleagues. Unis should employ more refugee background people as researchers. It is not our job to “save” them but our responsibility to create all opportunities, platforms.

Participants provided useful approaches such as “Listening to people with lived experience, enabling spaces for them to talk to positions of power, co-researching and designing, co-writing articles and reports, paying people for their expertise.” One emphasised the need for “meaningful, authentic relationships with people,” which involved “doing practical things – like raising money for Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) tests or International English Language Testing System (IELTS) tests.”

The questionnaire inquired about the types of partnerships that academics might develop. The central responses were cooperation and collaboration; creating partnerships at early stages and strong networks; sharing resources and knowledge with policymakers; working with civil society; finding out government needs or interests; and increased networking and mentoring with, and from, those with successful engagement experience. Others propose undertaking research with a direct interest in achieving impact and change and seeking an increase in funding opportunities. For example, sharing resources and knowledge with policymakers and assessing their interests “early in the research design process” could increase cooperation for data collection and research participation, with resultant interest in the findings. Improving networking skills could make the most of each other’s social capital, as well as mentoring from “those who have successful interactions with policymakers could help develop good strategies for junior academics or those with less experience.” The translation of journal articles into public-facing pieces and policy reports would reach policymakers and the public. A further proposal was to participate in “inter-disciplinary advisory boards, do more empirical research and develop a research program” oriented to what practitioners would find most helpful. There was reference to developing stronger relationships with allies, more consistent communication with policymakers, and attendance at networking events. Finally, it is crucial that “research can be used for a tangible advocacy/social change outcome.” These responses illustrate that collaboration takes different forms across Australia of refugees, researchers, civil society, media, and policymakers.

Participants urged strong research partnerships; like-minded groups; building relationships with asylum seekers and refugees; and working alongside NGOs, policymakers, celebrities or influential people and other academics, and this reflects scholarly analysis (Oliver and Cairney 2019; Hayton 2018). Respectful consideration of, and building effective and strong partnerships with, refugees and their lived experience are crucial. Some respondents advise belonging to collectives in order avoid burn out. These collaborations enhance the impact of academic advocacy and can encourage academic advocates to seek support. Strategies included “nurturing partnerships and disseminating our work outside academia – exploring alternative communication and platforms” and engaging with partners early which “would help ensure that the questions we’re asking align with partners’ concerns and goals.” Respondents emphasized building relationships “from the ground up, working alongside individuals/groups with lived experience, not just as an add-on, but at all stages of the research planning and development,” as “true collaborators, rather than simply extractive.” Academics’ responsibility comes to the fore here, as “we must use our institutional positions and platforms to lift others up – who already have this knowledge but have been denied their voice.” Developing relationships and “emphasizing working alongside people seeking asylum rather than on behalf of” them was a key theme, and this should be supported by “access to at least some funding to enable this work.” One commented that it would be helpful if universities recognized “that building those relationships is important – it is necessarily time consuming and it doesn’t tend to attract any significant grants.” Universities should prioritize “building relationships and networks and investment of time and energy” and support the “design and politics of research.”

5.2. Rendering research more accessible for policymakers

Florence and Martiniello (2005, 3) note that academic researchers “are sometimes accused of not engaging enough in social debates. But when they do so their discourse tends to be disqualified.” Academic advocates often seek to understand how policymakers may wish to receive information, and effective ways of engagement with government. In the responses, the means of engagement with policymakers showed some congruence with strategies suggested in academic literature. However, responses regarding how to render research more accessible to policymakers demonstrate an alignment with scholarly proposals and have the potential to enhance the efficacy of their engagement efforts (Graycar 2023; Oliver and Cairney 2019). Participants considered “learning more about how government and institutions work” and the need to speak their language; write in a less academic style? and also “for a general public, and not just the peer-reviewed articles.” Rendering “academic research more ‘palatable’ for policymakers and individuals outside of academia could assist in achieving policy change also in opening new avenues for more funding.”

It is worthy of note that academic advocates refer to potential “access mechanisms” in their responses and consider how these might assist them to gain access to policymakers. This may include advisory roles, expert testimonies, research dissemination, or direct engagement through consultations or meetings. Additionally, policymakers seek out academic expertise directly from these scholars or research centres or leaders in advocacy. Academics also present on areas of specialization in parliamentary committees and public hearings, nationally and internationally. There remains scope to foster constructive engagement between politicians and academics, regardless of their political orientation. However, as the questionnaire responses revealed, there has been, at times, relatively little alignment between what politicians want to hear and what academics wish to present, based on their knowledge.

5.3. Increased support by universities

To be effective academic advocates, support from the workplace is crucial. Gardner et al. (2021, 3–4) identified three key approaches. Firstly, universities should expand their conception of how they contribute to the public good and explicitly recognize engagement with advocacy as part of the work mandate. Secondly, there should be a broadening of work allocation models to allow at least 10% of time for advocacy and engagement with policy processes. Thirdly, strengthening ties between academics and civil society organizations and grassroots movements can be brought about by permitting the use of their facilities, free of charge, for mobilising and community-building activities. Respondents reinforced these points by suggesting that universities should support their academics in utilising their research and expertise to inform policymaking by facilitating advocacy work. Financially supporting those undertaking research that influences policy and recognizing the important practical work academic advocates undertake in their career are fundamental. Participants proposed that, as some academics who are “working on refugee rights issue have lived experience of asylum” this should be recognized “as a form of expertise” and these scholars “should be supported institutionally, academically, and financially. This includes through jobs, scholarships/bursaries, grant collaborations, research partnerships/collaborations and other academic opportunities.” Universities should provide increased support and “recognition of the importance of advocacy work over academic impact factors.” This presents consistent with Gardner et al.’s (2021, 4) argument that “while universities have an important role in facilitating greater engagement and advocacy by the whole academic community, their willingness to do so may be limited by the increasing corporatisation and marketization of higher education institutions.” Higher education institutions could support academics’ work by supporting or implementing their recommendations to facilitate advocacy.

6. The past and future of academic advocacy

We have demonstrated that advocacy poses significant challenges for academics in creating and maintaining partnerships; making research more accessible to policymakers; seeking access to policymakers and balancing their advocacy and academic roles. The latter is perhaps the major challenge, as it remains the case that universities generally do not facilitate advocacy, and Australia’s case study bears this out. There is little evidence that higher education institutions currently consider advocacy in criteria for tenure, promotion or securing an academic position. There is, equally, no evidence of censorship by universities. It can be difficult for those who are the only academics in their department or faculty undertaking an advocacy role, and we have observed that advocacy is more effective and sustainable when carried out as a group, and this concurs with the scholarly literature examined. Further, advocacy is undertaken by academics alongside heavy teaching, research, and administrative workloads.

Although the context within higher education institutions may appear disheartening, academic advocates are hopeful in the Australian context. When asked if they were willing to continue their advocacy, all of our respondents affirmed they would continue to work in this field, motivated by moral and ethical reasons and a commitment to values. Others referred to harmful government policies and the worsening of forced displacement. Participant regard advocacy as “needed, and we have a moral obligation to do this, even if it’s not always successful,” with “deep commitment to continue working alongside people seeking asylum.” Further, one academic has “worked in this area for close to 40 years and have no intention of stopping. The displacement problem globally is ever worsening, and it is important that countries like Australia engage more collaboratively in trying to manage it better.”

The large number of participants who referred to harmful government practices reflected on the necessity to prevent other countries’ governments from adopting the Australian “model” and many referred to the UK-Rwanda deal, and UK pushbacks, drawing on the Australian experience. They noted “I believe people seeking asylum are one of the most disadvantaged and demonized groups in Australia which requires people in positions of power to work along-side, and learn from,” with another, and being unwilling to “give up when policies are so harmful.” This may prove instructive in an international and comparative context. However, there is recognition of little resolution to date, with Australia’s treatment of displaced persons depicted as “pitiful, grotesquely distorted by toxic border politics.” One explained,

Advocating for the closure of detention centres and advocating for open borders is simultaneously abolitionist and anti-carceral; feminist; environmentalist. I believe racism, misogyny, patriarchy, queerphobia, colonisation, the destruction of the environment, carcerality, and so on, are all manifestations of the same or similar ontological and epistemological commitments, that can’t necessarily be addressed in isolation. Therefore, advocating for the closure of detention centres and open borders is simultaneously an environmental, feminist, anti-racist (etc) project.

Finally, advocacy features as a fundamental part of their role, often referred to as “a passion project” that gives meaning to their “work in academia” and “helps [them] to see how [their] work contributes to change.” Advocacy is viewed as “integral to academic work,” reflecting the ethical obligation to engage in this area and play a role in correcting societal narratives. These insights align with Lundberg’s proposal of “a scholarship of hope” (2022, 254), highlighting an “emerging methodological approach” that involves organization in “safe spaces” with multiple stakeholders to “merge academic knowledge with a hopeful political vision” (Lundberg 2022, 254). This approach emphasises the interaction of activists, researchers, and professionals (Lundberg 2022, 256). Despite facing ongoing challenges such as critiquing cruel policies and gaining limited support for advocacy in academic career promotion, academic advocates remain committed to their cause, displaying ambition and hope for the future.

7. Conclusion

Advocacy is a key commitment for many scholars within universities – in Australia and internationally – working on refugee issues. There are many challenges, including creating and maintaining partnerships, making research accessible to policymakers, and finding a balance between academic and advocacy roles due to inadequate support from universities. This article illustrates that academics work alongside, or as, refugees, with NGOs, civil society groups, university colleagues, family, and other broader networks. Seeking support for refugees may relate to specific policy concerns such as offshore detention, lack of access to protection, concerns relating to healthcare and the Australian Medevac legislation, or settlement. Additionally, some scholars act as conduits for advocacy, providing connections and expertise to refugee groups, civil society groups and experts, such as background briefings on a country that asylum-seekers are fleeing, support for legal cases, or advice to improve legislation. Although often behind the scenes, this support is important for advocacy dissemination and crucial for refugee protection.

It is somewhat surprising that some academics do not see value in approaching government. However, when one reflects on the difficulties of advocacy with successive governments, particularly in the Australian context, which have maintained cruel and harsh policies towards refugees – both within Australia and in offshore detention – it is perhaps comprehensible that advocacy has often focused on understanding and advocating about refugee experiences and speaking in the public domain rather than meeting with policymakers. This may be a reason for academic advocates to adopt a multifaceted approach, engage in advocacy with specific groups and participate in activities closely related to activism such as demonstrations. Further, attempts to meet with policymakers or to engage with them have resulted, in some cases, in a refusal to respond to invitations or contact.

Although the research sample of Australia was relatively small, responses reflected the importance of seeking humanitarian approaches to refugee protection. The timing of this questionnaire came when the Labor Government had been in power for nine months. One participant commented “[r]ecent ‘wins’ have created momentum to continue.” However, there remains frustration about a lack of adequate action. These academic advocates seek to influence public policy, to alleviate the dire circumstances that refuges deal with daily, and to have societal impact for more humanitarian policies. There is an overall message from the responses that academic advocacy is an important role and, despite challenges both within the university and in dealing with policymakers, their scholarly advocacy will continue. As long as there is a politicization of people seeking asylum, accompanied by injustice, there will always be some academics who will step forward and seek to render Australian society more humane and policies more just.

We anticipate that these findings will prove to be valuable to scholars worldwide, given the similarities of Australia’s policies with the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada, and the United States (Neuberger 2016; Robinson 2014). Since asylum policies continue to be transferred between countries, this presents an opportunity for academic advocates to discuss and exchange their effective mechanisms of academic advocacy. There is also the possibility for enhanced research partnerships in this issue. As Legrand and Stone note (2018) research partnerships spanning borders become prominent in their social and economic potential, and we suggest that they have increased policy impact over time as well on the issue of refugee protection. This article draws attention to some of the approaches on advocacy undertaken by academics in Australia when responding to successive governments’ inhumane asylum policies. Their insights and experiences may help other academic advocates to seek social, political, and legal change, observing the ways in which Australia constitutes a cautionary tale and a case in which their advocacy may provide a source of inspiration for advocacy internationally. This is a form of both research without borders (Legrand and Stone 2018) as well as academic advocacy without borders.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ainoa Cabada

Ainoa Cabada is a Lecturer and PhD Candidate in the Department of Politics and International Relations at The University of Adelaide, Australia. Ainoa’s research examines the challenges in the interpretation of refugee rights when comparing three key frameworks of international protection. Alongside her PhD and teaching roles, Ainoa worked as a research assistant with the Comparative Network on Refugee Externalisation Policies (CONREP) at The University of Melbourne.

Philomena Murray

Philomena Murray, Jean Monnet Chair ad personam, is Honorary Professorial Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia; Visiting Research Fellow, Trinity College Dublin and Associate Research Fellow, United Nations University Institute for Comparative Regional Integration Studies, Bruges. She has received awards for outstanding teaching and leadership in national and international curriculum development. She is assessor for Australian and European Research Councils. She founded and co-convened Academics for Refugees. She played a lead role in generating over $5 million in research and other funding. She was Director of the Comparative Network on Refugee Externalisation Policies (CONREP), 2018-22).

Pertinent publications include Matera, Tubakovic, and Murray (2023), Is Australia a Model for the UK? A Critical Assessment of Parallels of Cruelty in Refugee Externalization Policies, Journal of Refugee Studies; Murray, 2023, The Externalisation of Refugee Policies: the politics of distancing, in Dastyari, Nethery & Hirsch (eds.), Refugee Externalisation Policies. Responsibility, Legitimacy and Accountability, Routledge; Loughnan and Murray 2022, “Combatting Corrosive Narratives about Refugees,” CONREP Policy Paper; Vogl, Fleay, Loughnan, Murray & Dehm, 2021, COVID-19 and the relentless harms of Australia’s punitive immigration detention regime, Crime, Media, Culture 17(1); Murray & Longo, 2018, Europe’s wicked legitimacy crisis: The case of refugees, Journal of European Integration, 40(4).

Notes

1 In Australia, the party is spelt Labor, not Labour.

2 Kaldor Centre: https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au

Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness: https://law.unimelb.edu.au/centres/statelessness

Centre for Human Rights Education: http://humanrights.curtin.edu.au

Castan Centre for Human Rights Law: https://www.monash.edu/law/research/centres/castancentre

Melbourne Social Equity Institute: https://socialequity.unimelb.edu.au/activities/interdisciplinary-phd-program

ANZSOC: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/border-criminologies/content/section-index/anzsoc-borders

3 Academics for Refugees: https://academicsforrefugees.wordpress.com

The Refugee Education Special Interest Group: http://refugee-education.org

Asylum Insight; Refugee Research Online at https://refugeeresearchonline.org/about-new/

Australian Research on Refugee Integration Database (ARRID) at https://refugee-education.org/arrid

Comparative Network on Refugee Externalisation Policies (CONREP) at https://arts.unimelb.edu.au/school-of-social-and-political-sciences/our-research/comparative-network-on-refugee-externalisation-policies

4 See Asylum Insight, Refugee Research Online and the Australian Research on Refugee Integration Database.

5 The Office of Research Ethics and Integrity of The University of Melbourne approved this research. Reference Number 2023-25710-36746-3.

6 The option in figure 2 identified as “Representations and narratives about refugees” was included in the questionnaire as “Representations of, and narratives about, those with a refugee background”.