A Relational Inquiry into Social Protection Networks for Asylum Seekers and Refugees in the UK

《2030年可持续发展目标》呼吁通过采取综合社会保护和发展政策，在世界各地消除一切形式的贫困，建设不让任何人掉队的包容性社会（UN， 2015年b， a）。然而，最近的文献表明，英国社会政策中对寻求庇护者和难民（ASRs）的隐性和显性歧视导致这一群体的贫困率高，健康状况不佳和孤立（难民委员会，2004年；Fitzpatrick等人，2015年）。在反移民言论的推动下，英国即将脱欧，并促使对国内政策的重新审视，迫切需要有关当前SP规定对asr影响的实证数据。目的和目标我的研究将批判性地询问英国asr使用和提供的正式和非正式，本地和跨境的SP机制，在更广泛的国家移民话语和辩论中定位这些SP系统，并阐明公开的SP目标与他们所影响的生活现实之间的任何差距。asr的复杂社会网络将被绘制出来，以了解每个元素如何相互作用，以限制或实现自我报告的多维幸福，包括重新安置的难民、获得合法庇护的寻求庇护者和被拒绝庇护者的经历之间的比较。还将调查个人对各种形式的福利提供的经验、信仰和价值观。我的研究还将测试定性影响协议（QuIP） （BSDR, 2019）在收集自传叙事和绘制支持网络方面的功效，阐明网络成分作为多维福祉变化驱动因素的相互作用。QuIP方法将提供数据的定量概述，与定性叙述容易导航的联系，提供适合一系列受众的输出。创新研究将涵盖新的理论、经验和方法基础，包括：*记录asr的感知需求、SP经验和对支持责任的意见；*在本地和跨国范围内，将asr视为SP的接受者和给予者；*使用关系健康视角将SP互动与自我报告的多维健康联系起来；*纵向比较三个法律和政治上不同的asr群体的社会网络；*关注当地的巴斯/布里斯托尔地区（拥有30多个ASR支持团体）；*测试QuIP方法的有效性，以捕捉自传体叙事和构建社会网络插图。我的研究将通过测试QuIP的有效性，社会网络分析和关系健康视角来理解和说明asr对一系列受众的正式和非正式SP的经历，从而增加社会政策，移民研究和心理学领域。从经济和社会角度来看，它将深入了解SP网络的复杂性，asr对需求、代理和支持责任的看法，以及他们与SP提供商的互动如何限制或促进福祉和融合。这对政策制定者、TSOs、企业和公民都很重要，有助于更好地参与和制定政策。ReferencesBSDR, 2019年。BSDR简报文件：讽刺。浴。可从：https://bathsdr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/QUIP-briefing-paper-May-2019.pdfCouncil， R., 2004。饥饿和无家可归：国家取消对寻求庇护者、难民社区和志愿部门的支持的影响。伦敦：难民委员会fitzpatrick， S., Bramley， G., Blenkinsopp， J., Johnsen， S., Littlewood， M., Netto， G., Sosenko， F.和Watts， B., 2015。英国的贫困：一份中期报告。约克：朗特里基金会，2015。改变我们的世界：2030年可持续发展议程见：联合国大会，编，A/RES/70/1。联合国

ContextThe Sustainable Development Goals 2030 call for an end to poverty in all its forms everywhere, through the adoption of integrated social protection (SP) and development policies that foster inclusive societies where no one is left behind (UN, 2015b, a). However, recent literature suggests an implicit and explicit discrimination towards asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs) in UK social policy leading to high rates of destitution, poor health and isolation among this group (Refugee Council, 2004; Fitzpatrick et al., 2015). With the impending Brexit, fuelled by anti-immigration rhetoric, and catalysing a re-examination of domestic policy, there is an urgent need for empirical data on the impact of current SP provision on ASRs.Aims and ObjectivesMy research will critically interrogate the formal and informal, local and cross-border, SP mechanisms utilised, and provided, by ASRs in the UK, locating these SP systems within wider national immigration discourse and debate and elucidating any gaps between publicised SP objectives and the lived realities of those they impact. The complex social networks of ASRs will be mapped to understand how each element interacts to constrain or enable the realisation of self-reported, multidimensional wellbeing, including a comparison between the experiences of resettled refugees, asylum-seekers granted legal refuge and those refused asylum. Individuals' experiences, beliefs and values concerning SP provision in all its forms will also be investigated.My research will also test the efficacy of the Qualitative Impact Protocol (QuIP) (BSDR, 2019) in collecting autobiographical narratives and mapping support networks, illuminating network constituents' interactions as drivers of change in multidimensional wellbeing. The QuIP methodology will offer a quantitative overview of the data, with easily navigable linkages to the qualitative narratives, providing outputs suitable for a range of audiences.InnovationResearch will cover new theoretical, empirical and methodological ground by:* recording ASRs' perceived needs, SP experiences, and opinions on support responsibilities;* considering ASRs as receivers and givers of SP locally and transnationally;* linking SP interaction with self-reported, multidimensional wellbeing using a relational wellbeing lens;* comparing the social networks of three legally and politically distinct groups of ASRs longitudinally;* focusing on the local Bath/Bristol area (home to over 30 ASR support groups);* testing the efficacy of the QuIP methodology to capture autobiographical narratives and construct social network illustrations.ImpactMy research will add to the fields of social policy, migration studies and psychology by testing the efficacy of the QuIP, social network analysis and a relational wellbeing lens in understanding and illustrating ASRs' experiences of formal and informal SP for a range of audiences.Economically and societally, it will offer insights into the complexity of SP networks, ASRs' perceptions of need, agency and support responsibility, and how their interaction with SP providers constrains or enables wellbeing and integration. This is important to policymakers, TSOs, businesses and citizens, supporting better engagement and policy formation.ReferencesBSDR, 2019. BSDR Briefing Paper: QuIP. Bath. Available from: https://bathsdr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/QUIP-briefing-paper-May-2019.pdfCouncil, R., 2004. Hungry and homeless: The impact of the withdrawal of state support on asylum seekers, refugee communities and the voluntary sector. London: Refugee CouncilFitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G., Blenkinsopp, J., Johnsen, S., Littlewood, M., Netto, G., Sosenko, F. and Watts, B., 2015. Destitution in the UK: An interim report. York: Rowntree FoundationUN, 2015b. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In: U.N.G. Assembly, ed. A/RES/70/1. United Nations