In our last post we spoke about our first project team meeting. Our second in-person meeting focused on designing the project’s data collection methods. Over the course of a full day, we explored a range of research approaches, including creative and participatory methods that have emerged in response to critiques of more traditional forms of social research. Together, we reflected on the strengths and limitations of different methods and discussed how they might resonate with people living in asylum accommodation.
Our reflections were especially driven by a shared ethical commitment to our project participants, and the intention to engage with methodologies that are sensitive to their experiences and avoid retraumatisation. We discussed how traditional qualitative research methods, e.g., in-depth interviews, might present limitations when researching people navigating the asylum process. When seeking asylum, people are often required to provide accounts of their personal story by answering questions during highly power-unequal interactions with a variety of actors (solicitors, support workers, Home Office interviewers). Through our conversations it emerged that, for people seeking asylum, participating in a research interview might be reminiscent of these violent moments and be experienced as yet another injunction to answer a rigid list of questions about themselves.
We therefore identified photovoice and creative writing, particularly poetry, as two approaches that could offer alternative and meaningful ways for participants to share their experiences in an empowering and trauma-sensitive manner. Both methods create opportunities for people to decide what they want to share and what they prefer not to discuss, and also to express aspects of their lives that may be difficult to capture through conventional interviews alone.
The day also gave us space to discuss some of the practical and ethical challenges that come with collaborative research in a university setting. Working across different experiences, expectations, and forms of expertise requires time, trust, and ongoing dialogue. We also reflected on the wider political context in which this project is taking place. At a time when questions of asylum and migration are increasingly politicised, and when anti-immigration rhetoric and far-right mobilisations continue to shape public debate in the UK, conducting this research can sometimes feel particularly challenging.
At the same time, we left encouraged by the support we have received from the project partner organisations. Their commitment to creating more humane and just approaches to asylum accommodation reminds us that this work is part of a broader collective effort.
As we left our second workshop, we felt we had a clearer sense of the road ahead. We also left with important questions about accountability: who is this research ultimately for, who benefits from it, and how can we ensure that the voices and experiences of people seeking asylum remain at its centre? These questions will continue to guide us throughout the project as we seek not only to document experiences of asylum accommodation, but also to contribute to conversations about belonging, dignity, and social justice.
Leave a Reply