The Objective Refugee Status Determination - A discourse analysis of the interviews with members of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board with focus on their understanding on truth and reality and how this effect their approach to refugee status determinatio
Translated title
The Objective Refugee Status Determination - A discourse analysis of the interviews with members of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board with focus on their understanding on truth and reality and how this effect their approach to refugee status determination
Author
Udsholt, Le
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2018
Submitted on
2018-05-31
Abstract
This thesis examines how members of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board understand truth and reality, and how these understandings shape their discourse and approach to refugee status determinations. The study is grounded in Jørgensen and Phillips’ reading of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory and draws on three semi-structured interviews with former Board members appointed by the Danish Refugee Council (Bjørn Møller, Jesper Lindholm, and Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, 2013–2016). Within the Board’s politically independent framework, the analysis shows that the interviewees articulate distinct discourses about truth, reality, objectivity, and credibility, resulting in different approaches to making refugee status decisions. Findings indicate that identity and ongoing discursive struggles in social reality shape how evidence, testimony, and country of origin information are interpreted; the process is complex and marked by gray areas, and members are affected by the severity of the stories they hear. Who counts as a refugee is continuously negotiated as competing discourses seek to fix meanings in hegemonic positions, with Board members’ privileged roles giving them particular influence over this meaning-making. While conclusions about the three individuals are not claimed to be representative, the study demonstrates a method for uncovering the underlying logics that inform refugee status determinations.
Denne afhandling undersøger, hvordan medlemmer af Flygtningenævnet forstår sandhed og virkelighed, og hvilken betydning disse forståelser har for deres diskurs og deres tilgang til afgørelser om flygtningestatus. Studiet er forankret i Jørgensen og Phillips’ tilgang til Laclau og Mouffes diskursteori og bygger på tre semistrukturerede interviews med tidligere nævnsmedlemmer udpeget af Dansk Flygtningehjælp (Bjørn Møller, Jesper Lindholm og Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, 2013–2016). Med udgangspunkt i Flygtningenævnets politisk uafhængige rammer belyser analysen, at de tre interviewpersoner artikulerer forskellige diskurser om sandhed, virkelighed, objektivitet og troværdighed, som fører til varierende tilgange til selve flygtningestatusvurderingen. Resultaterne peger på, at identitet og løbende diskursive kampe i den sociale virkelighed former, hvordan beviser, beretninger og landeinformation fortolkes; processen er kompleks og præget af gråzoner, og medlemmerne påvirkes af de alvorlige historier, de møder. Hvem der er flygtning, forhandles løbende i feltet, hvor konkurrerende diskurser forsøger at fastfryse betydninger i hegemoniske positioner, og nævnsmedlemmernes privilegerede position giver dem særlig indflydelse på denne meningsdannelse. Selv om konklusionerne vedrører tre personer og ikke gør krav på repræsentativitet, demonstrerer studiet en metode til at afdække de underliggende logikker, der præger afgørelser om flygtningestatus.
[This apstract has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project full text]
Keywords