![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper examines claims made about the role of ‘expert knowledge’ in analysing the language of individuals seeking asylum in the UK. I treat policy as a type of power and seek to understand how this policy uses the language of science to further the British government's stated interest to provide ‘secure borders’ and a ‘safe haven’ for refugees. I look at how the Home Office defines, shapes and implements the policy, and at how the policy has influenced judicial decisions. In short I unmask UKBA's claim that it relies upon expert, scientific knowledge to assess asylum claims.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Prakash Shah, Colin Yeo, Anne-Marie Fortier and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this paper; however all errors and omissions are mine. Research for this paper was initiated by an ESRC grant entitled ‘Refugees and the Law: An Ethnography of the British Asylum System’ (RES-062-23-0296).
Notes
1. To understand the role of LADO elsewhere in the EU see Zwaan, Muysken and Verrips (Citation2010).
3. Source: interview with the Project Director of the RDS Unit on 12 September 2007.
5. The Home Office has a long history of burying/disregarding research critical of its policies; see for instance: on Home Office policy analysis; Robert Verkaik (The Independent, 13 February 2006; ‘Crime statistics “were distorted by politics” about how the Home Office suppressed commissioned research which did not support government policy’); in relation to the government's decision to disperse asylum seekers across the UK, see Alan Travis, ‘Warning on shifting asylum seekers to dangerous areas is revealed’, The Guardian, 16 March 2007.
6. See ‘The Refugee or Person in Need of Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006’ (SI 2006, No. 2525). Immigration rules which spell out the UK's obligations and procedures are found in Phelan and Gillespie (Citation2007).
7. See SI 2001 No. 566 (C. 24) and Immigration Directorates Instructions Ch. 1, Sec. 11 Race Relations (February 2006).
8. Source: Angela Eagle, Parliamentary Undersecretary, Home Office, Hansard HC Deb, 30 October 2001, 617W.
9. Authorizations are published in Hansard which is an edited verbatim report of proceedings of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
10. The latest version, which differs little from its predecessor, was published on 22 February 2010. www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylum processguidance/miscellaneous/guidance/languageanalysis.pdf?view=Binary.
11. See Broeders (Citation2007) for information about Eurodac.
12. Prof. Patrick of Essex University found that recorded interviews varied in length ‘with a mean of 18 minutes’ of which over half of the recorded time was used by the interviewer to ask questions (Report submitted by Prof. Patrick in May 2010 on the case of ‘MM’, p. 5 (copy in my possession)). At that point he had seen forty-three Sprakab reports.
13. Regardless of the caveats in the Asylum Policy Instruction (API), case workers refuse a large percentage of applications on the basis of the LA alone which is why so many of their decisions are overturned on appeal (see section 3). The underlying premise of LA as set out in section 2.1 of the API is that ‘Intelligence and CID reports indicate that there may be a significant percentage of asylum applicants claiming to be a nationality which is different to their true nationality, in order to further their asylum claim and/or to frustrate removal action in the event that their asylum claim is refused.’ In fact the government has never published information to support this claim.
14. Source: ‘Asylum applicants claiming Iraqi nationality: language testing’, House of Lords, Written answers and statements, 11 March 2003. See: www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id= 2003-03-11a.174.0
15. This reasoning creates additional problems for applicants who speak a Creole language (e.g. in Sierra Leone; Corcoran Citation2004).
16. Source: Home Office (Citation2003).
17. Data for the following section derive from requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The figures supplied by UKBA are provisional and do not add up. UKBA has evaded, delayed and/or refused to provide information.
18. Source: FOI requests (Ref. 11560, replied to on 20 August 2009, and Ref. 16394, replied to on 3 November 2010) to the UKBA.
19. The evaluation had data on ten cases that had been appealed, seven of which had been dismissed.
20. Statistics indicate that Somali asylum applications to the UK peaked in 1999 and rapidly declined before LA was systematically used (see ICAR Citation2006, Citation2009).
22. As Corcoran (Citation2004) notes, the interview process – which involves power asymmetry and an elaborate set of constraints imposed on the language elicited from the interviewee – is very likely to lead the interviewee to switch linguistic ‘codes’, thereby undermining any likelihood of obtaining asylum.
23. The statement was made at ‘Challenges and Commonalities in Providing Objective Evidence in Refugee Status Determination’, a conference hosted by Country of Origin Research and Information at the University of Westminster, London, 10–11 June 2010.
24. For individuals who speak a single language it is difficult to appreciate how and why individuals who speak multiple languages/dialects (such as asylum seekers) use them in different social contexts, in different places and with different speakers. On the issue of accommodation and code switching see Corcoran (2004).
25. A careful reading of the determination suggests that the analyst (E19) was not a native speaker of the appellant's language (see ¶15 and ¶95 of the determination).
26. The Swedish Migration Board, which previously awarded LA contracts to Sprakab, requires that the name of the analyst should be on the report.
27. Critically, as ¶98 makes clear, neither language recordings nor the firm's database are in the public domain. This means there is no independent way to verify the firm's work. Furthermore their reports do not cite relevant sources or other material relied upon in making a judgement.
28. See www.iafpa.net/langidres.htm for the 2009 statement.
29. At ¶94 the interviewer, a ‘native speaker’, provided a ‘preliminary indication’ (LA) within hours of the interview which is unlikely to have been effectively reviewed by a trained linguist.
30. In 2009 UKBA proposed to combine language analysis with DNA/isotope analysis to determine the country of origin of asylum applicants (see: www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/…/nationality-swapping-DNA-testing?view…). Correspondence between the Human Genetics Commission and UKBA on this issue raised major concerns about the policy (www.hgc.gov.uk/Client/document.asp?DocId=253&CAtegoryId=8) but UKBA did not suspend the policy until June 2011 (see: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/06/uk-abandons-study-of-nationality.html)
32. For the authorization and commentary see: http://freemovement.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/entry-clearance-discrimination-authorised/.