top of page

The status quo in migration management

The way in which digital and data systems in global human migration have impacted migratory journeys, discourse, and policy is manifold. Such emerging infrastructures have become significant markers for states to know, predict, and manage migration. The status quo, as we know it, is a dance of data being tossed around amongst ecosystem players: from states to multilaterals, from private enterprises to other commercial entities. This data is moulded and remoulded to cater to a variety of uses, creating a tapestry of data assemblages. These assemblages are bundles of data that can be shuffled to understand migration patterns through varied stakeholder lenses, whether to drive policymaking, or to build technologies to better surveil migrants. All things considered, migration technologies are ‘top-down’ in their approach and are reduced to managing a spectacle of numbers, often failing to account for the diversity in migrant experiences and journeys. 
 

This top-down nature of migration technologies has been exemplified several times by opaque and discretionary immigration decisions, taken in tandem with technologies and the humans that use them. One such blackbox resulted in 7000 students in the UK being wrongfully deported because of a faulty algorithm that accused them of cheating on a language acquisition test. In the USA, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) partnered with Palantir Technologies to track and separate families, enforcing deportations and detentions of people escaping violence in Central and Latin America. These decisions come with lackadaisical accountability, making it difficult to trace liability in the design, development, and implications of deploying such technologies. With the private sector coming in through partnerships to support the creation of such technologies, responsible processing of migrant data can take on a diminished role.

Alternatives to this approach

In the wake of such top-down technologies and governance towards migration management, we see the emergence of a considerable gap in the fulfilment of migrant needs, which also leads to the exacerbation of harm and a multidimensional ‘othering’ of migrants owing to their race, gender, and nationality, among others. As a result of such information vacuums, migrants often seek opportunities to navigate their journeys outside of these structures. These opportunities may come in the form of a Facebook group or a mobile application that provides information on visa applications, or smuggling networks, depending on the type of migration. The reason these seemingly ad-hoc technology-mediated solutions emerge to fulfil the flow of information for people on the move is that they respond to crucial, but oft-overlooked stakeholder in migration technology - the migrants themselves.
 

Such technologies act as an alternative to the status quo in migration infrastructures - one defined by a pronounced lack of understanding of migrant needs - by rebalancing the power dynamics in the ecosystem to include and represent migrant interests in a just and equitable manner. Our study refers to these systems as ‘Resistance Technology’ or ‘ResTech’, a digital layer in the migration sphere that is rooted in community value, and built to fill gaps in information, welfare, and development through bottom-up means (implying technology built by and for reconciling unmet migrant needs), thereby rebalancing existing power structures and enabling greater negotiating power for people on the move.

Frame 9518.png

Figure 1. ResTech as an alternative system in the migration data ecosystem

In an effort to recognise the role and functions of ResTech, we have undertaken the exercise of developing a live repository, or taxonomy, of systems that fulfil migrant needs in diverse and innovative ways. This seemingly invisible, but highly crucial layer of ResTech within migration management contexts highlights the existence of many informal and relational mechanisms that people on the move deploy to negotiate ever-complex migration contexts. These efforts are supported by various stakeholders to reduce barriers to information and mobility, particularly for vulnerable migrants and forcibly displaced people.

What are we trying to understand through a taxonomy?

The taxonomy is a means to unpack a latent, invisible, digital layer in migration management. By undertaking this exercise, we are hoping to understand a few things about ResTech systems:
 

  1. What are the data governance practices that these systems adhere to?

  2. How does funding flow in this ecosystem? What can we understand by funding patterns about the metrics for the success of ResTech?

  3. How do bottom-up technologies in this ecosystem create avenues for self-determination for people on the move?
     

The process of answering these questions involves arranging our research on ResTech systems into three major buckets of information, which are further subcategorised into codes and sub-codes:

11.png

Figure 2. Bucketing our codes

  1. General information about the ResTech, dwelling on foundational aspects of a ResTech initiative to gain an overarching understanding
     

    1. Description - The stated mission of the ResTech, and who it primarily seeks to benefit

    2. Domain - The area or service which the ResTech operates/provides

    3. Region of Activity - The geographical territory that the ResTech operates in

    4. Type of Entity - The legal nature of the organisation or individual that laid the foundation for the ResTech.

    5. Phase of Migration - The stage of the migratory journey that the ResTech applies to or functions within

    6. Function - The different pathways through which ResTech translate their functions

    7. Community Participation - The degrees to which community members (including people on the move, aid workers) are a part of designing, developing, and deploying the ResTech.
       

  2. Technology, providing information around the system architecture of the ResTech. Also sheds light on data governance and management practices.
     

    1. Region of Technology Development - The geographical territory where the entity that creates, handles, and/or operates the technology is based in

    2. Level of Openness - The extent of interoperability that can be facilitated by the ResTech to facilitate reusability, scaling, and collaboration across migration technology ecosystems

    3. Digital Interface - The nature of the medium in which the ResTech is made available to end users

    4. Consent Mechanisms - How the ResTech obtains consent for processing of personal data 

    5. Data Type - The kinds of data the ResTech collects from its users and for the functioning of its platform

    6. Privacy Principles - A set of guidelines and concepts that steer the development of technology-mediated services in a manner that is trustworthy and fair. As laid down in provisions of the GDPR

    7. Privacy Rights - A set of data, digital, and legal rights that are put in place to ensure individual freedoms and liberties in their interactions with technology-mediated services. As laid down in provisions of the GDPR
       

  3. Funding and sustainability considerations, allowing an understanding of the type of funding, accompanying funders, and the implications for sustainability
     

    1. Type of Funding - The types of channels that are employed for funding ResTech

    2. Type of Funder - The various kinds of entities that fund the ResTech

    3. Current Status - The operational/functional status of the ResTech.

Who is the taxonomy for?

Through this exercise, we hope to be able to create communities of care around ResTech systems. This taxonomy hopes to inform the actions of creators and deployers of ResTech, funding institutions, policymakers, and community members ranging from academia to on-ground aid workers, to people on the move themselves.
 

  1. For the creators and deployers of ResTech, the taxonomy creates a live repository that visibilises and amplifies their efforts, facilitating a knowledge-sharing community that can learn and communicate with each other. This will allow the cross-pollination of knowledge around ResTech and enable co-creation in bottom-up initiatives.
     

  2. For researchers and academics, this taxonomy is a resource that can foster further research into bottom-up technology mediation. Researchers and academics can shed light on how these systems can be used to build and support the migration technologies ecosystem.
     

  3. For funding institutions, this taxonomy is an opportunity to understand the ecosystem to find points of intervention to support the development of ResTech by opening up funding channels through grants, donations, and so on
     

  4. For policymakers, this taxonomy could assist in initiating legislative nudges and integrating this layer into the tapestry of migration management
     

  5. For people on the move and aid workers, this taxonomy is a list of initiatives that cater to their needs and aspirations in different migratory contexts that state instruments cannot fill in for.

What is the goal of this exercise?

Emerging Insights on this layer in migration

The taxonomy is meant to serve as an interactive tool for users to gain insights into ResTech systems through a range of key indicators encompassing geography, intent, functionality, sector, financial status, and stakeholdership, among others. These insights, we hope, will shape the ecosystem in a way that ResTech can be recognised and sustained as a crucial addition to the migration technology landscape.

Unbundling the ResTech ecosystem is an exercise that holds great promise in bringing out the necessity of community value in technologies built for conflict situations and migratory journeys. Guided by a vision to visibilise and unravel the sustainability levers underpinning ResTech initiatives, the modus operandi of our research is anchored in the following:
 

Collaborative - Our body of work emerges from myriad frameworks and principles to create a more holistic understanding of our ecosystem. We have borrowed heavily from scholars and experts in the human migration space, DPI, AI, refugee law circles, private sector, civil society, public sector, and academic organisations seeking to understand data's role in decision-making in emerging technologies.
 

Inclusive - Our efforts in this taxonomy are to view community-centric technologies in a manner that spotlights the realities and voices of the communities that drive and benefit from ResTech. The success of ResTech can fluctuate because of the various actors and interests at play, often through a skewed power dynamic that needs to be kept in mind in this exercise.
 

Multidisciplinary - Involving the role of diverse actors and enablers in this ecosystem is essential, along with various types of expertise, knowledge, and the general representation of diverse voices that are in touch with the technical and community aspects of this ecosystem. We aim to inculcate varying outputs and voices to ensure that this taxonomy is accessible to relevant stakeholders.
 

Accessible - We aim to disseminate this taxonomy through its insights and findings in ways that can be engaged with or applied by individuals, community leaders, or organisations - through guides, tools, and multimedia formats.

A Qualitative Approach

Creating a taxonomy that seeks to feature a wide array of ResTech, in all its forms and modes, is an exercise that demands creative research along various streams:

Desk research

Desk research for this taxonomy involved an extensive literature review of migration infrastructures, both formal and informal, as a way to draw out the presence of this layer in migration management. We used our desk research around data infrastructures for people on the move to draw out the distinctions between systems of control (implying technologies used for controlling migration in a manner that skews power in the hands of state and commercial actors)  and systems of care (implying technologies that operate to enable access and agency for people on the move to undertake their journeys). The former led us to inquiries around formal systems like the eu-LISA, PRIMES, Frontex, and so on, catered to states and border protection agencies to profile and surveil migrants for commercial and political interests. The latter brought us to our current exploration into alternative technology layers, as seen through mobile applications, information portals, and matching tools used in bridging gaps of access and information for people on the move.

​

​Our desk research also led us to uncover the manifestations of data as infrastructures that comprise information bundles, or assemblages, used in a variety of different use cases. We were able to break down the ecosystem and identify where the ResTech layer lies: in a crucial vacuum between the formal systems of control and the displaced communities. This led us to further investigate emerging perceptions of bottom-up governance through ResTech - to understand how data governance and technology design can originate from bottom-up principles of community participation.

Key informant interviews

Key informant interviews with humanitarian aid agencies, scholars, and industry experts played a crucial role in visibilising how bottom-up action and ResTech function. We spoke to several scholars in the realm of migration and technology, participatory data governance, humanitarian technology, and most importantly, with the creators and deployers of ResTech in largely European and South Asian contexts. Our insights around these conversations shaped our areas of inquiry, ranging from data governance to funding and sustainability questions for ResTech.

Expert Validation

The key informant interviews additionally acted as a means for expert validation of our thesis and findings around bottom-up technology governance enabling agency for people on the move,  creating room for self-determination. Our conversations with experts were instrumental in instilling confidence in our premise of defining and characterising ResTech, while weaving a growing network of scholars and practitioners at the intersection of migration and technology who were grappling with similar questions of data governance and migrant agency.

222.png

Figure 3. Our Methodology

Coding-based Analysis

In the journey of ideating and bringing to light the information that is on the taxonomy, we employed a free-flowing coding method referred to as ‘emergent coding.’ This process was predominantly intuitive, and based on our understanding of the migration technology landscape that we studied as a part of a broader effort to understand and build ‘trustworthy’ migration infrastructures for people on the move. During this research, we were fortunate to encounter and engage with bottom-up technology builders that have come to be classified as “ResTech” initiatives within our taxonomy. 

​

We followed an exploratory approach to coding by creating and ideating open codes along the lines of what we wish to understand about ResTech systems. In doing so, we set out to discover considerations around design, data governance, funding and impact for people on the move that is produced by such systems, along with an ecosystem understanding of marrying ResTech with principles of data governance, funding flows and data flows, decision-making within design, governance, and downstream impact. 

This then translated into creating axial codes, where the aim was to understand the relationship between open codes, and how columns displaying a wide array of information about the system could be analysed together. This would be utilised to make predictive and inferential statements about the system and understand what can be revealed about the ecosystem at large through each system.

​

A recurring process in this exploration has been selective coding, involving a periodic review of the codes to align with emerging theories around community technology and indicators for what makes up the ecosystem. 

333.png

Figure 4. Phases of our research

The ongoing and upcoming stages include analysing and visualising the findings around the taxonomy, linking it to the questions we seek to explore through the taxonomy. The culmination of this exercise through the translation of these findings into an interactive tool would enable target groups and users to excavate findings and insights on and about the ecosystem. The codes would act as varied lenses through which these insights can be drawn and understood. 

​

A key part of this exercise has been to create layered mechanisms around the verification of information and a review and feedback process on the same. This process involves a series of review and feedback processes with the internal team, experts and scholars in the ecosystem, and the creators and deployers of ResTech. This exercise intends to recognise crowdsourcing as an instrumental element in building the taxonomy and making inferences through it.

​Endnotes

Limitations and Scoping

Our research has relied solely on in-depth interviews with experts and creators of ResTech, along with secondary desk studies. While this perspective has lent us useful insights, it does not necessarily capture the lived experience of the users of the system. Similarly, there are limitations around the extent of information that is available through interviews with the creators and deployers of ResTech due to a variety of reasons surrounding technical knowhow and concerns around sustaining such systems. The current taxonomy as we see it, consists of roughly 60 systems, which is a limited pool of systems in an ocean of resistance and bottom-up initiatives in the human migration sphere. Most of these initiatives originate in the Global North, either in the design of the technology or in its eventual deployment. Excavating more such systems, along with conversations and interactions with more players in the system will enhance the foundation of such a research endeavour.

Reflections on Building the Taxonomy

Centering community voices

While the creation of a taxonomy was an exercise that initially relied heavily on desk research, our consistent hope is that it can foster a growing, collaborative repository that features community input and champions the nuances and specificities of ResTech systems that desk research falls short of. This authentic representation of the day-to-day realities that may influence questions of the longevity and sustainability of these systems is crucial to make a case for its further visibilisation.

Iterations and evolving research methods

A considerable amount of time spent devising the taxonomy, developing its codes, the outlook, and our aspirations from the same involved constant and rigorous re-evaluation of the metrics by which we were measuring the ResTech ecosystem, i.e., our codes. The intuitive nature of this exercise also supplemented this process of review and recalibration. Iteration - in both the available research and our expectations from the taxonomy - was a core principle that helped us move forward as researchers. We began by understanding ResTech simply as an alternative to migration technologies that are divorced from and oblivious to migrant needs. But in the course of the next few months, we uncovered the placement of ResTech as a layer that invokes community value, paves the way for renewed governance and participation, and allows for migrants to be in the spotlight. Had the taxonomy not undergone this constant process of iterating our research goals, we would not have been able to set on the journey to uncover ResTech to its fullest potential.

Our capacities and roles as researchers

In furtherance of spotlighting the crucial nature of collaborative community participation in building out this taxonomy of ResTech, we were also conscious of our research reflecting these voices primarily, and ours as researchers secondarily. Our emphasis on this taxonomy being a live, crowdsourced resource is to remove ourselves from a position of passing judgements on the realities and challenges surrounding systems within this layer. Therefore, a constant reminder during this process of curating ResTech was for us to remove our assumptions from the insights and outputs we generated. We are merely facilitators of the information we have collated and understood about the ResTech ecosystem. While our research has been intuitive, it is by no means furnished with our personal value judgments on the lived experiences of the communities behind these systems. Therefore, to mitigate and reconcile any inherent power dynamics that may exist between the researchers and community members, we wanted to bestow the ability to shape the taxonomy on community voices, as opposed to solely in the hands of the researchers. We hope this researcher-community interaction can enhance the relevance of the taxonomy in achieving its objectives.

bottom of page