难民身份确定的心理学研究证据

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY
Jane Herlihy, Hilary Evans Cameron, S. Turner
{"title":"难民身份确定的心理学研究证据","authors":"Jane Herlihy, Hilary Evans Cameron, S. Turner","doi":"10.1093/jrs/fead043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper presents evidence that refugee status decision makers make assumptions about how humans think and act that are contrary to decades of scientific evidence about human behaviour and cognition (e.g. memory, risk assessment) – including studies and reviews of studies specifically focused on the RSD context. This evidence is not made available to decision makers. In contrast, decision makers regularly benefit from systems and procedures providing relevant, up to date, methodologically sound, impartial, independent, balanced expert evidence pertaining to country of origin information (COI). This paper proposes similar processes for the collation, assessment, and presentation of psychological evidence in order to ensure fairer, more sustainable refugee status decisions.","PeriodicalId":51464,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Refugee Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychological Research Evidence in Refugee Status Determination\",\"authors\":\"Jane Herlihy, Hilary Evans Cameron, S. Turner\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jrs/fead043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper presents evidence that refugee status decision makers make assumptions about how humans think and act that are contrary to decades of scientific evidence about human behaviour and cognition (e.g. memory, risk assessment) – including studies and reviews of studies specifically focused on the RSD context. This evidence is not made available to decision makers. In contrast, decision makers regularly benefit from systems and procedures providing relevant, up to date, methodologically sound, impartial, independent, balanced expert evidence pertaining to country of origin information (COI). This paper proposes similar processes for the collation, assessment, and presentation of psychological evidence in order to ensure fairer, more sustainable refugee status decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51464,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Refugee Studies\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Refugee Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fead043\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Refugee Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fead043","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提供的证据表明,难民身份决策者对人类的思维和行为做出了与数十年来关于人类行为和认知的科学证据(如记忆、风险评估)相反的假设,包括专门针对RSD背景的研究和研究综述。决策者无法获得这些证据。相比之下,决策者经常受益于提供与来源国信息有关的相关、最新、方法健全、公正、独立、平衡的专家证据的系统和程序。本文提出了类似的心理证据整理、评估和呈现过程,以确保更公平、更可持续的难民身份决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Psychological Research Evidence in Refugee Status Determination
This paper presents evidence that refugee status decision makers make assumptions about how humans think and act that are contrary to decades of scientific evidence about human behaviour and cognition (e.g. memory, risk assessment) – including studies and reviews of studies specifically focused on the RSD context. This evidence is not made available to decision makers. In contrast, decision makers regularly benefit from systems and procedures providing relevant, up to date, methodologically sound, impartial, independent, balanced expert evidence pertaining to country of origin information (COI). This paper proposes similar processes for the collation, assessment, and presentation of psychological evidence in order to ensure fairer, more sustainable refugee status decisions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: Journal of Refugee Studies provides a forum for exploration of the complex problems of forced migration and national, regional and international responses. The Journal covers all categories of forcibly displaced people. Contributions that develop theoretical understandings of forced migration, or advance knowledge of concepts, policies and practice are welcomed from both academics and practitioners. Journal of Refugee Studies is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal, and is published in association with the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信