post by Rachel Saunders (2021 cohort)
Conference: Sexuality, Nationality and Asylum – The New Plan for Immigration
Motivation
I was motivated to do this conference because I wanted to use the research later in my PhD. The conference was an opportunity to engage with experts in the field of asylum and queer rights. This included Dr Alexander Powell who organised the symposium, and who also organised the special edition which my paper was originally submitted to.
My desire to learn more about LGBTQI+ refugees was to explore narrative hospitality, as well as utilise mixed methods approaches for exploring rights. In this case, I draw on my media studies and doctrinal legal experience, enabling me to develop mixed methods I employed in my PhD.
Paper preparation
I undertook the first draft of the paper in the two months prior to the conference. I did this by conducting a media review of relevant news articles, as well as conducting an in-depth doctrinal analysis of relevant legislation and case law. This formed the basis of my presentation at the conference, which I then submitted to Dr Powell two weeks after as the first draft of the emerging paper.
Due to editorial deadlines and confusion with version control, the paper was not accepted in the original special edition. I submitted a revised version to Societies as part of their ‘Gender and Class: Exploring the Intersections of Power and Inequality’ special edition. This has spent eight months in editorial processing, working with the editor to finalise a version we were both happy with. It was accepted this week pending final amendments.
Details of process of responding to reviewers’ comments
This paper went through two rounds of reviewer comments. The first was conducted by Dr Powell and peer review related to the special edition. It was a fair process, but due to time constraints, the feedback was minimal. There was an editorial version control problem where my revised version was not peer-reviewed due to the prior version being sent to the second reviewer. This meant that I only had two days to submit changes, and even then those changes were based on a rushed review. In the end, the editorial decision was made that my paper would not be submitted for the conference special edition.
This left the paper in limbo. I sat on it for three months to decide what the next step would be, then decided to submit it to Society based on the journal’s reputation and the special edition’s subject matter. The journal accepted the paper, though asked I make substantive changes to better fit their editorial style. This changed the style and flow of the paper, with six rounds of editing prior to final acceptance. While I accepted the majority of reviewer comments, there were several that I pushed back on because they would have altered the paper beyond the confines of the research.
Reception of paper at conference
The reception at the conference to the paper was overwhelmingly positive. I was asked detailed questions which helped sharpen my understanding. Refugee participants enabled me to engage with the core discourse in a grounded way that was not otherwise possible. The paper sparked a good conversation in the after-conference chat, through which I built connections I used for other opportunities after the conference.
Role of paper within PhD
My thesis features a case study of LGBTQI+ asylum seekers in Part 5, looking at how narrative hospitality is used in the mediating process between asylum seekers and immigration agents. It is the capstone of my research and would not otherwise have happened without the conference. Dr Powell’s critique of my paper played a significant role in helping me find the sources and processes for this section of the PhD, and without it, the case study would have been significantly weakened.
The paper also helped shape my understanding of resistance in the role it plays before the law, especially in how civil rights groups resist dominant narratives. Many of the sources I have used in the paper flowed into the PhD, as did the understanding of case law. Without the paper, I would have spent an extra two months looking for sources.
Follow-up activities or contacts that have resulted from presenting the paper
Off the back of the conference, I was asked to be involved in a High Court case as an expert researcher, and my advice was included in the final submissions on the case. I also worked in a research role which directly involved research from this paper. I also gave lectures at the Law School’s summer school in 2023 and 2024 based on this paper to prospective students looking at how the media frames asylum seeker identities.