Migration Research & Analysis Produced in Academia and Other Sectors

Data, research and analysis are central to understanding migration and mobility dynamics, and to enabling evidence-based, sustainable migration policies.  If policy officers do not understand what and how change is occurring in migration and mobility – both positive and negative change – it is almost impossible to craft effective and sustainable policy and operational responses.
 

Knowledge production in the policy cycle

Where does data, research and analysis fit in the policy cycle?

Policymaking is multilevel and multi-actor. It extends across various levels of governance and involves both public and private actors. These factors impact the way data and research can be used in order to produce evidence-based policies.

Sound evidence is needed at the outset.  While data, research and analysis constitute a specific stage of the policy cycle - as can be seen below - they are also relevant to all stages. "Phase 2: Data, research and analysis" is the evidence-building phase that informs and shapes policy thinking; it draws on national data, global data and regional practice and reaches out to international communities of practice for ideas.

Policy cycle stages

Type, quality and quantity of research

The type, quality and quantity of research and analysis, including on migration, have increased dramatically over the years and so has access to such material. This results from such factors as the increase in the number and type of actors involved in the production of research and analysis, and the increasing variety of sources, websites and databases making research and analysis available. Some research and analyses are not freely accessible: they may be published in journals that require a subscription or, if produced by governments, are often not published internal.  
 
The various types of evidence made available via migration research present advantages and disadvantages for the policymaker. Before delving into how to assess the quality of research and analysis and how to ensure its credibility and relevance (see Assessing the credibility of research and analysis), we outline different types of research, their advantages and limitations, their producers and the sources where they can be found.
 
Academic research is not specifically targeted at policymakers and the texts are not necessarily solution oriented or meant to inform policy. The long format of academic articles and especially monographs and books and the extensive use of academic language is often considered a barrier to using these sources in policymaking. That said, a number of academics do work towards informing policy and notable efforts are being made both to invite academics to make contributions and to increase their capacity to produce research that is policy relevant, concise and written in non-technical language.

Scientific publishing vs general publishing

There are fundamental differences in the publishing processes for academic and non-academic material, and each has its strengths and weaknesses (see Table 1 below). The academic publishing system is largely focused on producing journal articles and books. This process typically involves multi-stage reviews and editorial comments involving authors, editors and reviewers. Most published academic research (“white” literature) are behind paywalls (that is, not freely accessible), and often managed by commercial publishers. In contrast, the production of research and analysis publications outside of academic publishing (“grey” literature) generally involves faster and simpler processes that are typically, although not always, characterized by more limited peer review. Contributions to the grey literature (such as research reports, working papers and government/official documents) are usually freely available. 

Strengths and weaknesses of academic and non-academic research

	Academic Research (white literature)	Non-Academic Literature (grey literature)
Strengths	High-quality research usually ensured through peer review by experts; Must refer to and build upon existing scientific evidence; Built on networks of expertise.	Accessible to wide audiences, as usually freely available online and with less technical terminology used;  Rapid publishing processes enabling timely updates for policy deliberations; Usually of a shorter format; Ability to draw on expertise in academic and policy spheres.
Weaknesses	Not freely accessible, as often behind paywalls managed by commercial publishers; Long publishing timelines due to peer review processes, not meeting policy makers' needs for rapid research and analysis, and at times using out-of-date data; Not easily accessible ot a non-expert audience as highly technical and/or theoretical, with academic terminology used; Lengthy written outputs, particularly in the case of monographs and handbooks.	Varying quality due to lack of quality assurance mechanisms of certain outputs; Possible to ignore the existing evidence base, thereby diminishing overall quality and relevance; Certain outputs may be more focused on advocacy and policy change or driven by a political agenda.

Source: World Migration Report 2022, chapter 4, pp 130.

Migration data, research and analysis: main types of published outputs

The World Migration Report highlights in numerical terms the growing amount of migration data, research and analysis on migration (see chapter 4 of the 2018 and 2020 editions). There has been a massive increase in the production of migration knowledge products because of long-term increases in:

• International migration, as part of globalization and related transformational processes.
• The relevance of migration as a public policy topic.
• Collection and reporting of migration-related data.
• Academic focus on migration.
• Publishing globally, including a massive increase in open publishing that is free to access and the shift toward more 'self' publishing by organizations and individuals.

The main types of published outputs on migration data, research and evidence are summarized in the table below, with key actors who produce them also highlighted. Discussion of how to assess relevance and credibility of such materials when undertaking desk-based research for policy processes is discussed below.

Types of published outputs

Type of published output	Key features	Key publishers	Key authors	Quality
Blog posts	Short in length (up to 800 words) embedded links to related outputs	Think tanks; UN agencies; advocacy NGOs; research institutes	Experts from academia, practitioners, researchers/analysts & policy orgs	Variable depending on publisher, authors & QA processes
Policy briefs	Short in length (2-3 pages) links to related outputs	Think tanks; UN agencies; governments; advocacy NGOs; research institutes	Experts from academia, UN, governments, think tanks, NGOs,	Variable depending on publisher, authors & QA processes
Papers	medium length (typically 4-5,000 words) specific thematic/geographic focus	Academia, UN agencies; governments; think tanks; advocacy NGOs; research institutes	Experts from academia, UN, governments, think tanks, NGOs,	Variable depending on publisher, authors & QA processes
Reports	longer publications reference-type reports or on a single study topic can be specific/narrow, general/broad or multiple usually extensive bibliography	Think tanks; UN agencies; governments; advocacy NGOs; research institutes	Experts from academia, UN, governments, think tanks, NGOs,	Variable depending on publisher, authors & QA processes
Books	substantial works (around 7,000 words) peer reviewed commercial (cost to buy/access) longer-term focus, extensive analysis substantial bibliography	Commercial publishers (especially academic)	Primarily experts from academia and think tanks.	High due to peer review & commercial aspects
Journal articles	substantial works (around 7,000 words), often narrow in scope peer reviewed; high rejection rate commercial (cost to buy/access) longer-term focus, extensive analysis substantial bibliography	Commercial publishers (especially academic)	Primarily experts from academia.	High due to peer review, rejection rates & commercial aspects
Datasets	statistical datasets able to be downloaded/access for analysis; specific variables/focus; de-identified data; often aggregated, not unit record data.	UN agencies; academia; NGOs; governments; tech platforms.	Not applicable	High due to curation QA processes.

Sources: World Migration Reports (2018, 2020 & 2022) and emm2.0.

Communication issues: talking at cross-purposes

There are inherent differences between policy and research communities, with employees often facing extremely different job roles, legal-policy frameworks and incentives structures even though they may be focusing on the same or similar topics. Terminology, for example, can stem from legal-policy frameworks (for policy officials) or conceptual/theoretical literature (for academic researchers), such that policy officers and academic researchers can be working on the same issues but end up talking at crossed purposes. Understanding incentive structures and working methods can help with bridging the divide between policy and research communities, as outlined in the summary infographics below.

Differences in incentive structures

Policy Sphere	Research Sphere
Problem solving  Risk mitigation Strong focus on national interest and often reflects (geo)political agendas Reliance on “relevant” information Classified/closed environment [in democratic systems] Consultation and “citizen” engagement	Understanding the problem Questioning assumptions Testing and re-testing Strong focus on personal achievement  Publish (or perish) Importance of discipline (open) access to information Funding structures and biases

Differences in working methods

Policy Sphere	Research Sphere
Fast paced / time poor Collective / team-based Action-oriented delivery / negotiation & persuasion Emphasis on “oral tradition” Broad (not deep) knowledge required Sets parameters for operations & programming	Slower pace  Individual-based Depth of knowledge required Strong writing / analytical capability More comfortable with ambiguity & complexity (& contestability) Limited practical implementation of output

 

Opportunities: how researchers can better connect to policymakers

Policy Sphere	Research Sphere
Fast paced / time poor Collective / team-based Action-oriented delivery / negotiation & persuasion Emphasis on “oral tradition” Broad (not deep) knowledge required Sets parameters for operations & programming	Produce robust research Op-eds / blogs / briefs Quantitative component Dialogues – webinars Oral briefings  Do research to understand policy processes and forums Reframe “research question” “What do we want to know?” to “What do we want to solve?”