Negotiating Agency:
Age assessment experiences of
former unaccompanied minors
seeking asylum in Germany
Astrid Daiana Jessen
International Migration and Ethnic Relations Master Thesis 30 credits
Spring 2020: IM639L Supervisor: Jason Tucker Word Count: 20,90
I
Abstract
The thesis explores on the negotiation of agency in experiences of age assessment of former unaccompanied refugee minors who seek asylum in Germany, as well as in their interaction with the situational context. As a combination of narrative and thematic analysis, the study is based on six online semi-structured interviews with young people and two with professionals working in Youth Welfare Offices. By employing the perspective of Emirbayer & Mische (1998), agency takes here the form of a temporal process. As a result of the juxtaposition between aspects embedded in the past: such as the fact of not having identity documents; their knowledge of age; images of childhood; experiences lived in the trajectory to Germany, and the interplay with the time, flexibility, and credibility in the practical implementation, the negotiation of agency at the time of the age assessment ranges between normalization and confusion. The findings contribute to the debate about age assessment in Germany unifying migration and childhood research. Furthermore, it advances with an empirical approach of agency in the sociology of youth.
II
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to mention that this work will not have been possible without the enthusiasm of my informants to participate in the study. My most sincere thank to all of you for the time, your trust, and the value to share your feelings and experiences. You inspired me with a sight of continuity reaffirming that obstacles make us powerful to achieve goals in life.
At the same time, I would also like to extend my gratitude for the time and kind predisposition of Ms Wiesinger and Mr Schmidt to share your expertise and commitment with your work.
Secondly, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS) at the University of Osnabrück and the Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM) at Malmö University for the opportunity to be student of the double degree programme in Migration Studies (EuMIGS). I would like to specially thank you to the coordination of the programme, the professors who have contributed to expand my knowledge during these two years, and my fellow students in Germany and Sweden with their kindness, comments, and support. Furthermore, thank you to my supervisor, Jason Tucker, for your valuable feedbacks and positive energy. I am grateful for encouraging me to get a step forward throughout the process.
Finally, I am gratified to have an extraordinary family, my dear mother and Bocha, who always support me in every decision, keep me to go on the road, and have brought me where I am. My mother who spread my wings and encourages me to fly limitless. My dear sister Dani and her family. My loyal friends located in different places and fellow students who became friends, they have been incredibly supportive for a long time, sharing their love, patience, time, and believing in me.
III
Table of Content
Abstract ... I Acknowledgments ... II
1. Introduction ... 1
1.1 Aim and Research Questions ... 2
1.2 Delimitations ... 3
1.3 Dispositions ... 3
1.4 Terms and Definitions ... 4
Age Assessment ... 4
Unaccompanied Minors ... 4
Refugee/ Asylum Seeker ... 5
2. Contextual Background ... 6
2.1 Framework from Youth Welfare Support to Age assessment ... 6
2.2 Age assessment approach in Germany ... 7
2.3 Victim or villain? ... 9
3. Previous Research and Contribution ... 11
3.1 The use of age assessments ... 11
3.2 Young people’s experiences of age assessment ... 12
3.3 Age, Childhood and Agency ... 13
3.4 Contribution of the thesis ... 16
4. Theoretical Framework ... 17
4.1 Agency ... 17
4.2 Elements of Agency: past-future-present ... 18
4.3 Structure and Agency ... 19
4.4 Operationalization ... 21
5. Methodology and Method ... 23
5.1 Research Design ... 23
5.2 Method ... 24
5.2.1 Semi-structured Online and Phone Interviews ... 24
5.3 Material ... 26
IV
5.3.3 Presentation of Informants ... 26
5.3.2 Sampling process ... 27
5.4 Data Analysis ... 28
5.5 Validity and Reliability ... 28
5.6 Reflexivity and Positionality ... 29
5.7 Ethical Considerations ... 29
6. Analysis and Discussion ... 30
6.1 Agency negotiation in the Age assessment ... 31
6.1.1 Agentic orientations in the experiences of age assessment ... 31
6.1.1.1 Habit related to the past ... 31
Obstacle with the documents ... 31
Knowledge about age ... 34
Between Childhood and Adulthood ... 36
6.1.1.2 Judgment related to the present ... 38
Normalization ... 38
Confusion ... 40
6.1.1.3 Imagination related to the future ... 41
Study and Vocational Training ... 41
6.2 Interaction with situational context in the Age assessment ... 42
6.2.1 Credibility of a statement ... 42
6.2.2 Physical Appearance & Lack of Language Knowledge ... 44
6.2.3 Time & Professional Training ... 45
6.2.4 Flexibility ... 47
7. Conclusion ... 50
7.1 Suggestion for future research ... 52
References ... 54
Appendix A: Informed Consent Form ... 66
Appendix B: Interview Guide I ... 68
1
1. Introduction
In a short time between 2015 and 2016, more unaccompanied refugee minors arrived in the European Union than ever before.
In 2015 more than half of the 21.3 million refugees worldwide were children aged below 18 years (UNHCR, 2017). In Europe, around 1.3 million asylum applications in the European Union-27 Member States were reported, and around 95,000 of the asylum applicants were considered unaccompanied refugee minors.
In Germany, the increase steep during 2016 (35,935), when it was received more than 50% of the total of asylum applications from unaccompanied refugee minors in Europe (63,250). These numbers became challenging preceded during 2014 (4,400) and 2015 (22,255) with a minor representation of 20% and 25% of the total numbers in Europe (21,205; 91,955), respectively (Eurostat, 2020).
In 2016 and 2017, two different murders in Freiburg and Kandel (Germany) triggered the German public discourse about unaccompanied refugee minors. The focus was posed around the age assessment because of the lack of clarity about murderer’s age, since the crimes were alleged to be committed by accepted unaccompanied refugee minors.
In the light of the foregoing, the age assessment, a particular administrative step in the reception system, started again to be a target of inquiry. It raised requests during 2018 to reform the actual Social Act with the aim to strength medical age assessments for unaccompanied refugee minors. The discourse was oriented to counter potential lies about age, to make youth officers’ work more efficient, and to ensure protection to children. In the background, the questioning was if the regulations for assessing age of young refugees were strict enough and accurate. Following this line, however, age assessment becomes a weak arbiter balancing between detecting those who lie and ensuring protection (Kvittingen, 2010, p. 14).
In this sense, Germany represents a country where age assessment has been politicized, which shifts the scope of age assessments’ purpose of protection and makes the issue reactive to practical concerns. Besides, age assessments are contextualized in the first screening within the process of taking children into care (Inobhutnahme), in case of minor asylum seekers or not, which is independently regulated from the asylum process. It means that a decision on age is not directly linked with the purpose of determining the immigration status. However, it is a legal uncertainty if it may not have a binding effect on other authorities (Méndez de Vigo &
2 Wiesinger, 2019, p. 7). Furthermore, because of the nature on how policy is applied, there are no unified instructions to age assessments.
This study takes the form of an explorative study and gives light to the participants’ perceptions and the meaning ascribed to aspects that implicitly take part in the dynamic of an age assessment, drawing on their previous experience and cultural repertoires. Accordingly, I look at this specific piece in the reception system based on semi-structured interviews that intend to gather the experiences of six former unaccompanied refugee minors who arrived in Germany between 2014 and 2016. In order to reinforce my knowledge, I also integrate the situational context that emerges through the triangulation supported by the perspectives of professionals in charge of the procedure.
Looking into the agency of unaccompanied refugee minors shed light into the policies and the possibilities for age assessments practical action that might improve the quality of their experience in that circumstance. The concept here takes the form of a temporal process. Considering this approach lies on the fact that the empirical existence of a young person is the result of their adjustment to various temporalities. In the moment of the qualified inspection conflates simultaneously multiple agentic orientations: past events lived in the country of origin and during their trajectory to Europe, but also their expectations for the future. In this sense, it demands to be framed as part of a life course, where young people are socially engaged acquainted different temporalities and layers of contexts (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 962).
Furthermore, the study proposes to fill a gap between an ascribed perspective to unaccompanied refugees that attempts to make themselves younger in order to obtain special protection rights, and an approach of age assessment that focuses on the human person as a whole. It lays the foundations to open the discussion about age assessment unifying the practice and what young people offer to say. Moreover, it outlines implications for future research and possible developments that can be constructive to re-examine age assessments.
1.1 Aim and Research Questions
The objective of this research is to explore on the experiences of age assessment. In particular, how unaccompanied refugee minors negotiate their agency according to lived experiences and wishes for the future, as well as how the interaction with the situational context occurs in the practical implementation. But also I am interested in exploring the challenges behind the practice for the young people, as well as for the employees working in the Youth Welfare Offices to deliver protection.
3
I. How do unaccompanied refugee minors negotiate Agency according to their agentic orientations towards the past, future, and present evident in the interviewees’ experiences of age assessment?
A. How is the interaction with the situational context during the age assessment in Germany?
1.2 Delimitations
Due to an unexpected present, adjustments were made as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic occurred in the middle of the research. Therefore, I have decided to conduct online-interviews and the informants do not correspond to a particular place in Germany. On the contrary, they were spread out through different federal states.
For ethical and legal reasons, I have also decided not to interview minors, so young people under 18 years. Because of that, data was collected retrospectively to build the analysis. It means that at the time of the interviews (April 2020), my informants were former unaccompanied minors who experienced age assessment between 2014 and 2016. This range of time is based on the previous decision.
Accordingly, I consider important to note that the current experiences of age assessment as well as experiences in other places that are not encompassed in this study may provide a different analysis in light of the years and places notified by my informants. However, interviews with professionals working in the Youth Welfare Service (Jugendhilfe) reference to the current situation.
1.3 Dispositions
Relying on the previous introduction, aim, and research questions, a clarification of the main concepts used in this study will be presented. Chapter 2.0 follows the contextual background, which introduces the legal framework that situates the age assessment in Germany and the approach in the country. The third chapter advances with a selection of previous literature shedding light on the field from different disciplines. With this, I intend to position the contribution of this study. After that, the theoretical framework in chapter 4.0 presents the concept of agency and its theoretical basis that relates agency and structure. This is followed by its operationalization. Chapter 5.0 develops the methodological frame, where information about the method, material, data analysis, as well as ethical considerations are provided.
4 Consequently, the analysis and discussion in chapter 6.0 is reserved to interpret the data drawing on the research questions. Finally, the last chapter concludes the study and reflects on suggestions for future research.
1.4 Terms and Definitions
Age Assessment
“Age assessment is the process used to establish the age of an asylum seeker and more specifically, whether they are a child or an adult” (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2018, p. 9). “…It is the process by which authorities seek to estimate the chronological age or range of age of a person…” (European Asylum Support Office, 2018, p. 15).
Although it is not clear which definition of age assessment is taken by Germany, the procedure involves two components or methods: a qualified inspection in form of an interview, and in case of persistent doubts about age, a medical assessment.
However, both provide approximate assumptions about the chronological age of a person. In parallel to the discussion of the methods itself, different terminologies have been identified: age determination, age estimation, age assessment (Altersfestellung; Alterseinschätzung;
Altersbestimmung). As “age estimation” indicates, contrary to what the term “age
determination” might suggest, there is no method without margin of error by which the age of young people can be determined without doubts (Caritasverband Darmstadt, 2020). In this sense, “age assessment” aims to discuss information about age based on different sources to develop a holistic understanding of the person. Moreover, the use of this term in the study follows the concept used in the legal regulation.
Unaccompanied Minors
“An unaccompanied child is a minor who arrives on the territory of the Member States unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State concerned, and for as long as he or she is not effectively taken into the care of such a person. It includes a minor who is left unaccompanied after he or she has entered the territory of the Member States” (European Asylum Support Office, 2018, p. 10). This definition foreseen in the European Union asylum acquis is included by Germany.
Even though this study uses the concept “unaccompanied refugee minor”, it is to my knowledge a controversial discussion around it. However, for the purpose of the study, I
5 decided to follow the terminology proposed by the Association for Unaccompanied Refugee Minors in Germany (BumF-Bundesfachverband unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge e.V.). On the contrary to “unaccompanied foreign minor”, the term refugee represents the real experience lived by the person, but also underlines the responsibility to protection and social acceptance, not solely indicating a non-affiliation to the receiving country (Bundesfachverband unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge BumF, 2018, p. 1).
With the purpose of policy and research, it is widely used the term “unaccompanied asylum-seeking child” (UASC) which describes children and young people under the age of 18 who arrive in a host country alone and make an independent asylum claim (Eberhart, 2018). On the other side, “separated children” is sometimes used interchangeable and highlights “a person under 18 years of age who is outside their country of origin and separated from both parents, or from their previous legal or customary primary caregiver” (UNHCR and Save the Children, 2004, p. 2). It is generally preferred by some organizations to stress the essential problem of separation that they face (UNHCR and Save the Children, 2004, p. 2).
With reference to child and minor, they will be used interchangeable (any person below the age of 18) as the European Union acquis as well as the The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child(Article 1) define childhood by reference to age (European Asylum Support Office, 2018, p. 16). It includes also adolescents (UNHCR, 2005, p. 441).
Refugee/ Asylum Seeker
The recognition of a person entitled to protection can be concluded according to the Fundamental Law in the article 16a (Grundgesetz) or the International Law, which recognizes refugees as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion” (The United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees, 1951, Article 1).
In this line, asylum seekers in Germany (Asylberechtigten) have constitutional status “it serves to protect human dignity, but also protects life, physical integrity, freedom and other fundamental human rights” (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge BAMF, 2019). However, for unaccompanied young people is still not clear whether they are “refugees” nor “asylum seekers” under German law (Krane, 2020).
6 Regardless of the position in the asylum process1 or the recognition in the asylum procedure, according to the four different protection forms2, I will use the concept “refugee” to emphasize the threats such children face in their country of origin and in the experience of flight (Bundesfachverband unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge BumF, 2018, p. 1).
2. Contextual Background
2.1 Framework from Youth Welfare Support to Age assessment
In terms of numbers and public attention, unaccompanied minors were for many years a “marginal phenomenon” in Germany (Zeller & Sandermann, 2017). Their legal situation has slowly improved in the recent years through the attention of youth welfare and practice-oriented exchange (Berthold, 2014, p. 14).
In 2005, first changes in relation to the legal situation of unaccompanied minors were developed. They were incorporated in the reform of the Social Code VIII (Zeller & Sandermann, 2017).
In this sense, when they enter Germany, the primacy of child and youth welfare is applied as well as the provisions contained in Book VIII of the Social Code (§ 42e SGB VIII- Gesetz
zur Verbesserung der Unterbringung, Versorgung und Betreuung ausländischer Kinder und Jugendlicher), in which the Child and Youth Welfare Act is codified.
That law regulates the admission of foreign children and adolescents. It applies to accommodation, care and assistance (Tangermann & Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, 2018, p. 17).
It was followed in 2010 with the withdrawal of the reservations regarding the The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child making unaccompanied minors equal to German children in the Child and Youth Care Act.
With the high influx of unaccompanied minors during 2015 and 2016, in November 2015 the Social Act VIII was amended again. The child and youth care systems were overload in cities such as Hamburg, Munich or Berlin. In some places institutions and specialists were
1 Whether with the intention to apply for asylum but not yet registered at the Federal Office-
Asylsuchende, or already within the process- Asylantragstellende.
2 Right to asylum- Asylberechtigung § 16a GG; refugee protection- Flüchtlingsschutz § 3 Abs. 1 AsylG; subsidiary protection- subsidiärer Schutz § 4 Abs. 1 AsylG; or prohibition of deportation- Abschiebungsverbot § 60 Abs. 5 and 7 AufenthG- (Huber & Lechner, 2017)
7 entrusted with the tasks of unaccompanied minors for the first time (Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 19/4517, 2018). As a consequence, professionals working in the Youth Welfare
(Jugendhilfe) as well as social workers have had to expand their expertise (Zeller &
Sandermann, 2017). Primary concerns were oriented to the lack of accommodation and qualified staff, and in political terms, a concern was around the expenses and who and how it was going to be economically afforded (Wiesinger, 2017).
The reform was aimed to create the opportunities to use all the capacities throughout Germany and distribute municipalities’ workload more equitably (Deutscher Bundestag, 19/4517, 2018). But also to show that the child's best interest was the main goal of the new law, regulating the child’s well-being and special needs for protection (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge BAMF, 2019).
In this sense, the basis for a federal state to admit unaccompanied minors is an admission quota (based on the Königstein Key agreement). Once the provisional taking into care
(vorläufige Inobhutnahme) ends within seven working days, the result of the so-called initial
screening must be notified to the responsible state distribution center (Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit und Gleichstellung, 2017)
Therefore, the Youth Welfare Office (that has local responsibility) is responsible for the implementation of the distribution procedure. After that, the office to which the minors have been assigned is responsible for their taking into care (Inobhutnahme) (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2018, p 9).
2.2 Age assessment approach in Germany
Most of the unaccompanied refugee minors present a lack of official documents to prove their identity and age. This is because not only in some countries of origin, the date of birth is not documented, but also due to the respective refugee circumstances they do not carry any official documents with them upon arrival (Caritasverband Darmstadt, 2020). However, age is decisive to establish the responsibility of the Youth Welfare Office and for young people seeking protection to be taken into care (Deutscher Caritasverband, 2018). It determines the relationship between the state and the person (European Asylum Support Office, 2018, p. 16).
At this stage, age assessments become relevant because of the implications that the procedure may have on the future of unaccompanied refugee minors in the receiving country. It would not only determine the special treatment according to child protection. But also, it is the first step consequently triggered to welfare services such as social work, psychology, and
8 pedagogy assistance. Furthermore, decisions made upon an age assessment can be seen as the first steps on the integration of a young person, in essence, they will inform about the welfare presence and support of the receiving country, and how it may have influenced on unaccompanied refugee minors’ future prospects.
The Youth Welfare Offices have the responsibility to assess the age of unaccompanied asylum seekers (Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 19/471, 2018). In this sense, since November 2015 age assessments are made in accordance with Section 42f (1) and (2) of the Eighth Book of the Social Code (SGB VIII) in the course of the provisional taking into care
(Inobhutnahme) and the so-called initial screening (Erstscreening).
Even though the discussion around age assessment is not a new phenomenon in Germany, especially around medical age examinations, in 2015 the age assessment was added in the amendment of the Social Act VIII in name of the qualified inspection, which previously existed. The practical implementation is justified with the 2nd edition from 2017 “Recommendations for action to deal with unaccompanied minors” (Handlungsempfehlungen zum Umgang mit
unbegleiteten Minderjährigen) written by the Federal Work Group for State Youth Offices (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Landesjugendämter), which is currently under construction for an
updated edition.
Furthermore, it is known that in terms of administrative procedure, it is differently implemented and not uniform among Youth Welfare Offices in the states and municipalities. Therefore, the practice is treated as non-binding, which means that a report already made by a Youth Welfare Office may be not considered credible by another receiving office (Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 19/918, 2018).
The minority must be first determined by the identity documents. However, when there is a lack of identity documents, a qualified inspection (Inaugenscheinnahme) is carried out, which can be considered as a social assessment (Smith & Brownless, 2011). In this case, it is conducted an interview called 4-eyes principle (Vieraugengespräch) with help of one interpreter and at least two pedagogical experts, and one psychological support who take part of it. After that, the decision will be made in relation to the binary minority/majority (under or over 18) (Bundesfachverband unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge BumF, 2020).
The person concerned is asked to answer questions based on family, previous education, migration route, and detailed biography data in order to observe its developmental status. The main focus is on how the person reacts to relevant suggestions, contradictions, and child-like handling may indicate a lack of maturity. But if there is enough probability of the minority, even remaining doubts about self-disclosure, it does not change the fact that the person then is
9 assumed as minor applying the principle of the benefit of the doubt. However, if doubts can not be resolved, the Youth Welfare Office may arrange a medical examination with the purpose of age assessment (Bundesfachverband unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge BumF, 2020).
In practice, methods include assessment of dental maturity or physical maturity, and X-ray diagnostics can also be used for teeth and carpal bones, or for hands and collarbones (Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 19/918, 2018). The regulation to age assessment excepts genital examinations, taking into consideration the least intrusive method. However, methodological norms are not specified (Deutscher Caritasverband, 2018). In addition, new methods (e.g. DNA test, prism hand scanner) keep cropping up in the discussion about medical age assessment (Deutscher Caritasverband, 2018).
A prerequisite for medical examination is a signed consent by the person concerned and the legal representation. On the other hand, the Youth Welfare Office should previously provide information about the methods and consequences of the assessment. On the contrary, the results can not be used (Bundesfachverband unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge BumF, 2020).
However, as a procedure itself, it is not excepted from margins of error in two of their components: the qualified inspection and the medical assessment. First, there is no method to determine exactly chronological age, which leaves medical assessment with no real relevance. Secondly, even though the qualified inspection appears to be currently the best practice to decide about minority or adulthood, it also leaves space to doubt in certain cases.
In the case of Germany who does not present clear instructions, opens up the spectrum to dissimilar decisions among Youth Welfare Offices. Therefore, the responsibility lays on the expertise developed by federal states, the approach and practices acquired by the offices, the knowledge exchange among officers, but mainly in the interdisciplinary and intercultural competences of the officers involved in the procedure.
2.3 Victim or villain?
As I mentioned before, in the context of migration, unaccompanied minor refugees can rarely verify their identity through documents. According to an evaluation of ongoing asylum procedures of the German Central Register of Foreigners (Ausländerzentralregisters) with date January 2015, it was stated that 73% of the claims were made without any identity documents. Therefore, age assessments are situated in front of the Youth Welfare Offices´ decision to protect minors.
10 In some cases, a suspicion of identity deception is correlatively attached to age assessments. It is coupled with negative descriptions toward refugees, which in the end perpetuates discriminatory practices or stigmatization in general (Masocha & Simpson, 2011), but in particular may influence professional spheres (Gower, 2011).
In this sense, there is a settled idea that associates refugees without documents with a self-disclosure that points the intention of making themselves younger in order to receive special protection. This applies mostly to people who are close to the age of 18 which rises doubts about whether they are children at all. Not part of the discourse, it may be the case that some young people would prefer to be recognized as adults in order to reach another preferred destination.
Identity deception is not clearly defined, it can be perceived in the media coverage as follows: “Many unaccompanied minor refugees falsify their age (…) a study by the Institute of
Forensic Medicine from Münster shows that 40 percent of the unaccompanied refugee minors examined were not minors, but over the age of 18 (…) every second refugee who describes himself as a minor gives false information…” (B-Z Berlin, September 22, 2019). “The young people would have made themselves younger to come to Germany” (Tagesschau, April 24,
2020).
In relation to the protection that receive unaccompanied minors, it is addressed: “…anyone
who is classified as a minor refugee and enters without a family receives special protection. He must not be deported and does not have to live in collective accommodations…” (B-Z Berlin,
September 22, 2019).
Adults posing as children is a newly-identified phenomenon (Kvittingen, 2010, p. 13). However, what might constitute a lie in the case of an adult might not necessarily be a lie in the case of a child. At this point, the skills of examiners are essential to evaluate the reliability of a child’s account (Kvittingen, 2010).
The issue of suspicion created around adult asylum seekers is reflected on the politicized nature of age assessments (Kvittingen, 2010), but also a culture of disbelief that questions genuine protection to children (Crawley, 2007). Chronological age seems to represent “a barrier between deserving care and being perceived as intruders” (Eberhardt, 2018, p. 19). As a consequence, unaccompanied refugee minors often fall as vulnerable in need of protection, on one hand, and as adults threatening the welfare system, on the other hand (Eberhardt, 2018, p. 19). It means the gap between “victim or villain” (Gower, 2011, p. 326).
11
3. Previous Research and Contribution
3.1 The use of age assessments
Research on the use of age assessment is extensive and practice-related. Most of the sources making reference to the procedure itself are written by governmental institutions as well as by organizations interested in children and refugees. There is an extensive amount of literature in the field of forensic medicine that involves a discussion about the reliability of medical assessments with migration purposes, its human rights and ethical concerns, and the use of the techniques used to measure age (e.g. skeletal, dental maturation, and X-rays examinations) (e.g. Aynsley-Green et al., 2012). Even though these aspects are not concerned in this study, I consider appropriate to mention them, as I perceived their influence referring to age assessment as a synonym of the medical examination.
Although the general rule involves three different methods: a physical assessment, a psycho-social assessment, and a holistic assessment that basically combines both. This following takes into consideration maturity, personal interaction, development, history, family, among others (Pradella et al, 2017, p. 144). However, the practice approach of age assessment implies different forms regarding the context. Only in two European Union-Member States, medical tests are not used. Therefore, age assessment is only carried out through interviews (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2018, p. 9). As Gregor Noll (2016) noticed, there is an interdisciplinary struggle in the use of medical age assessments and a consensus that there are discrepancies on how and if they should be used, particularly in the process of asylum (Sutalo, 2017, p.8).
The fields that often address the use of age assessment and encompass a scarce amount of literature are Public Health (Kenny & Louhry, 2018; Pradella et al, 2017) and Law (Noll, 2016; Méndez de Vigo & Wiesinger, 2019).
As a consequence of a general concession on the complexity and lack of accuracy with the available methods, Kenny & Loughry (2018) suggested a psychosocial approach that recognizes young people’s transition into adulthood, so that support, placement, and status can be provided on the basis of assessed strengths, needs, and vulnerabilities of the individual rather than on chronological age (p. 15). On the other side, referring to the potentially endanger of children’s right, Mishori (2019) rises the concern that age assessment procedures are based on reference materials without taking into consideration ethnicity, nutritional status, disease, and developmental history.
12 In this sense, the European Asylum Support Office practical guide for Europe (2018), with the intention to clarify the concerns, suggested a holistic and multidisciplinary approach aiming to take into consideration a broader spectrum of factors part of the migration process, rather than focusing exclusively on chronological age. In this line, it includes medical and non-medical examinations.
3.2 Young people’s experiences of age assessment
Research on the experiences of age assessment is limited. However, some relevant studies have acquired voice in the context of the United Kingdom and widely cited in other contexts such as Australia, Sweden, or the United States. They are interdisciplinary and mostly situated in the field of Social Work (Gower, 2011; Chase, 2010), Policy and Law (Crawley, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012; Bhabha 2001, 2004; McLaughlin, 2018), Clinical Psychology (Eberhardt, 2018), and Refugee Studies (Kvittingen, 2010).
As I mentioned, most of the academic studies were mainly developed in the United Kingdom, where “concerns over age cheating, or adults posing as adolescents, have led to vigorous debates” (Kenny & Loughry, 2018, p. 16). In this sense, age assessments are often studied in relation to the asylum and welfare system triggered to age-disputes, access to welfare protection, misunderstandings between the assessors and young people during the interview, impacts on mental health and well-being, cultural differences in the conception of age and childhood, political agency, and identity.
Most of the scholars’ address “age-disputed persons” directly or indirectly as an administrative category targeted to advocacy groups´ claims (Kvittingen, 2010, p. 4). Eberhardt (2018) underlines age-disputed separated young people as a minority group who have been judged, disbelieved and silenced by structural discrimination against their own knowledge (p. 70). Crawley (2010) sees age-disputed cases when asylum-seekers claim to be children and are treated as adults (p. 167).
In relation to how the young people are represented in policy and practice, Crawley (2010) considers that the concept of childhood based on the access to protection under international law is full of tensions. Children are represented as passive victims, vulnerable, with particular need for protection, but as a threat to the integrity of immigration controls (p. 167). Kvittingen (2010) agrees in this aspect and sees that the asylum framework is cantered on the irregular status of applicants, and the children framework is grounded on an understanding of child as innocent, vulnerable, dependent and lacking adult capacities. Even more, the author underlines
13 the skepticism around separated minors exacerbated when they apply for asylum (Kvittingen 2010, p. 8). In terms of Bhabha (2004) children are seen as more threatening than adults, “pseudo-children”, with suspicion and hostility (p. 240).
In this sense, Crawley (2010) advocates for a recognition in the asylum system to the principle of child agency or voice, not only to vulnerability. In addition, the author observes that asylum adjudication fails to recognize children as political agents, as well as decision-makers fail to engage with them as social actors (p. 168). It is alienated with the passive victim status that sits uneasy with the agency in travelling, arriving alone and seeking asylum independently (Crawley, 2009). However, the author avoids extending on the meaning of agency, it is solely implied that “children are acted upon, but they do not act: they are assumed to have no agency” (Crawley, 2012, p.163).
In different forms, the scholars from various disciplines agree on a systematic disbelief and lack of support. Crawley associated the subject to this experiences in many times as “unchildlike” (Crawley, 2010, p. 167). In this line, a claim´s credibility and the applicant´s general credibility is linked.
However, Kvittingen (2010) includes an additional component which is the overall policy’s aim meaning that it is reflected on the presumptions about the applicant´s credibility (p. 30). Eberhardt (2018) rises up this aspect as power imbalances meaning that young people are affected by hermeneutic injustice by feelings of disbelieved, judged, dehumanized and interrogated (p. 70). From another perspective, Chase (2010) focuses on the effects of power through the scrutiny to contextualize silence experiences on young people seeking asylum alone and makes a parallelism to Foucault’s panoptic mechanism, arguing that there is a system of surveillance and control that aims to identify, label, and monitor from the moment young people first arrive into the receiving country (p. 2055).
Moreover, Eberhardt (2018) provides other lines of discussion related to experiences of confusion because of unfamiliarity with language and customs, but also by a lack of transparency and communication about the age assessment process and cultural differences.
3.3 Age, Childhood and Agency
The process of age assessment “reveals a number of underlying assumptions about what it means to be a child” (Crawley, 2010, p. 167), which gives rise to open interpretations, negotiation and manipulation with the category of childhood (McLaughlin, 2018, p. 1764).
14 Within the childhood research, different conceptions about children and childhood in society have been discussed during the last 30 years from the lens of different disciplines such as Sociology, History, Psychology, Geography, Anthropology, and Philosophy - E.g. James, Jenks & Prout (1998), Archard & Mcleod (2002), Kehily (2008), Wyness (2011), Aitken (2001), Katz (2004).
The concept is attached with idealizations and expectations about young people and their role in societies, universally - James, Jenks & Prout (1998); Jenks (2005); McLaughlin (2018). However, the meaning placed upon children varies from culture to culture, but also within the history of culture as their own. In essence, this idea follows the contemporary studies of childhood, implicating that childhood is a social construction. Similarly, it goes hand in hand with an anthropological contribution, which holds that there are multiple childhoods, each culturally codified and defined by age, ethnicity, gender, history, and location (Schwartzman, 2001)
This idea corresponds to the "paradigmatic shift" (James, Jenks & Prout, 1998) in sociology, which started at the beginning of the 1980s. It challenges a biological reductionism and age-and-stage-based determinism with a sociocultural understanding of childhood. Accordingly, it means studying the child as a being rather than as a becoming, where social constructionism got a stronghold on the theory (James, Jenks & Prout, 1998).
On the other side, the tradition of moral and political philosophy has risen two relevant ideas of children. On one hand, that children are property of their parents or an extension. On the other hand, that children are incomplete adults. Consequently, they do not possess power and capacities as adults do. This idea conceptualizes children as unfinished humans and as becoming rather than being in themselves (Archard & Mcleod, 2002).
This previous traditional view is also associated with the developmental psychology where children are representatives of the evil, the innocent, the naturally developing, and unconscious child (James, Jenks & Prout, 1998). It considers children as a natural rather than a social phenomenon leaving them as dependent individuals. As a consequence, they are not accounted as moral subjects (Archard & Mcleod, 2002, p. 3).
In addition, the shift of the paradigm within childhood studies also recognized the need to explore the children’s part shaping their own world, meant the children’s agency. It aims to acknowledge “the agency of children in shaping the form that childhood takes as a structural element within society, as an age-based stratification, and as the everyday social, political, and economic context within which children’s lives unfold” (Pufall & Unsworth, 2004, p. 29). From this base, grew the demand for children’s rights and their advocacy (p. 29).
15 In this line, different disciplines commonly agree on analyzing children as subjects in their own right. However, in the ethical debate about migration they rise as a subcategory of human beings, as it is assumed that “within the general category of irregular migrants, children constitute a group with special claims. For one thing, they are a particularly vulnerable subcategory of human beings, one standing in need of special protection, as is reflected, for example, in the existence of a special international covenant on the Rights of the Child” (Carens, 2008, p. 168).
In this line, particular emphasis is posed on child protection that puts the child’s best interest at the core, which stresses the idea that children separated from family and support networks are viewed as vulnerable and entitled to protections, support, and rights from the state (Giner, 2007). Josefsson (2017) named it a mainstreaming paradigm of children’s right, a tradition that takes The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Childas a frame of reference for the ultimate definition of children’s right (p. 318).
In connection, the international child’s definition: “any person below the age of eighteen years” (UNCRC, 1989, Art. 1) has ratified a politically and legally constructed of childhood, where chronological age becomes a social value in relation to the law. Rosen (2007) refers to this notion as the “politics of age” meaning that representations of childhood support legal and political agendas, these represented as an existing cultural norm (p. 297). On the other side, Pufall and Unsworth (2004) hold that the The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child handles the manner to the question “when is a child?” reflecting on a meaning of childhood in contrast to majority and maturity, not so much on age-normative responses (p. 17).
In response, taking into consideration the evolving capacities of the child, Lansdown (2005) would suggest the replacement of legal age-limits with individual assessments to determine children’s capacity in decision-making. This idea is grounded in the balance between recognizing children as active agents embodied in Article 123 of the The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child entitling them to participate in decisions that affect their lives, and being subject to protection in relation with their development: immaturity and youth.
3 “States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child” (UNCRC, 1989, Art. 12).
16 This scenario ensures respect for children’s agency, but not exposing them prematurely to the full responsibilities normally associated with adulthood. (p. 3)
However, this can become ambiguous during the Youth, as Valentine (2003) remarks, because the blurred character in the boundary between childhood and adulthood. Therefore, he states that this process is bounded up with structures such as the labor market, the family, the education system, and the consumer culture (p. 39). In this line, the social context within maturity might come varies among and within cultures, as well as some children may mature earlier or later (Pufall & Unsworth, 2004, p. 32).
3.4 Contribution of the thesis
This study seeks to unify migration and childhood studies, where “surprisingly little attention has been paid to childhoods that are characterized by migrancy and mobility” (White et al, 2010, p. 156). In particular, the reception system in Germany around unaccompanied refugee minors focusing on the age assessment procedure. This study encourages to include the procedure as a subject of discussion within the field in the country.
Even more, within childhood studies aims to advance with agency as an empirically tangible concept, what Coffey and Farrugia (2014) make analogous to “unpacking the black box” in the sociology of youth (p. 472). In addition, it takes into consideration one of the goals of childhood studies in listening to young people’s voices and observing their social actions, helping to understand how they participate in the construction of their experiences (Pufall & Unsworth, 2004).
On the other side, this study contributes theoretically with an understanding of agency that not directly opposes agency and structure, but analyze agency from a temporal perspective situated in context.
I am aware of a constant and unresolved tension between the binary “being” and “becoming” along the literature of childhood studies. In this sense, time remains external to the child as long as childhood is understood as a marker of time throughout the life course, and aging an intrinsic internal feature of the person (Uprichard, 2008, p. 308). In this line, I complement both notions seeing children as active social agents throughout the life course, as the onus of their agency is in the past, the future, and the present. (p. 311).
17
4. Theoretical Framework
This section addresses some theoretical concepts that will allow me to understand how agency can help to understand experiences of age assessment, as well as what aspects of the situational context interplay with them. The reason to choose this approach follows the aim of the project. In this sense, agency is used as a framework. From there, it would be possible to inform in which terms unaccompanied refugee minors challenge, define, that situational context or not. Accordingly, how they reinforce each other.
When approaching agency, this study mainly relies on the notion of agency developed by Ebirmayer & Mische (1998) characterized as relational pragmatics. A typology that draws on Mead (1932; 1938) and the symbolic interactionist perspective (Kristiansen, 2014, p. 7).
4.1 Agency
A simple definition of the concept defines agency as “the ability to influence one’s life” (Mortimer & Shanahan, 2003). In a step forward, Emirbayer and Mische (1998) define agency as a “temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments (the temporal-relational contexts of action) which, “through the interplay of habit, imagination, and judgment, both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations” (p. 970). In this sense, this definition not only takes into consideration temporal orientations of agency, but also gives analytical expression.
In reviewing the concept, it became a source of confusion as well as target of critics within the social thought. At the center of the debate has been associated with selfhood, motivation, will, purposiveness, intentionality, choice, initiative, freedom, and creativity (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 962). One of the main critics is addressed to the use of the concept as carrying different ontologically and heuristically meanings (Coffey & Farrugia, 2014, p. 462). It means that it might be used to refer to active subjectivity and may also be drawn to discuss choices, decision-making, or forms of self-expression (White & Wyn, 1998).
In this sense, agency rises two implicit lens. On one hand, agency considered as a conceptual tool, a variable. On the other hand, agency as a human capacity, what Kristiansen (2014) names “existential agency” (p. 10). However, Emirbayer & Mische (1998) underline that actions of socially and temporally situated actors can not be removed from their social contexts (p. 963). In that sense, agency is not aligned in the form of having or possessing an internal, intrinsic quality or an independent property of individuals (Dettmann, 2017, p. 37; Scherr, 2013, p. 231).
18 In interaction with socially hopes, fears, and wishes for the future, actors project their paths of action with a view of what follows, so for the authors- Emirbayer & Mische- agency is also a “project-like” (Mick, 2012, p. 530), which also means that agency situationally and interactively created in a form of process-like can be always lost depending on the situation that limits or empowers at the same time (Dettmann, 2017, p. 36).
Following this line, temporally categories of agency are considered as variables. As well as individuals in a given situation may vary in their ability to shift or take on these temporal perspectives (Kristiansen, 2014, p.11).
4.2 Elements of Agency: past-future-present
The conceptualization of Emirbayer & Mische (1998) facilitate to examine “a chordal triad of agency”, which means different forms of action oriented toward the past, the future, and the present. This typology contends that where the social actor is situated, determines the temporal orientation of agency (Kristiansen, 2014, p. 8).
In this sense, the analytical aspects (past, future or present) are embedded in empirical social action. Moreover, one temporal orientation is the dominant tone, but the other two elements never disappear (Ebirmayer & Mische, 1998, p. 972). This consciousness of time is the ontological matrix of people’s relationship to the world. It is used to show how people locate their memories of past events and their projected achievements (Lacroix, 2014, p. 10).
First, the element related to the past is called “iterational element”, which was subject of interest in the theories of practice. It identifies a selective reactivation of past patterns of thought and action. These are routinely incorporated in practical activity providing, as a consequence, stability and order to sustain identities, interactions, and institutions over time (Ebirmayer & Mische, 1998, p. 971).
Second, the element oriented toward the future called “projective element” can be found in the existential philosophy or psychoanalysis. This element includes the imagination of possible future trajectories of action. Consequently, received structures of thought and action may reconfigure in relation to actors’ hopes, fears, and desires for the future (Ebirmayer & Mische, 1998, p. 971).
Third, the analytical aspect oriented toward the present is called “the practical-evaluative element”. It can be found in the tradition of moral philosophy or critical deliberation. This element involves the capacity of actors to make practical and normative judgments among
19 possible trajectories of action. It is in a given situation, the response to emerging demands, dilemmas, and ambiguities (Ebirmayer & Mische, 1998, p. 971).
With this temporal orientations, the agent will carry out the action by either routinely reproducing past patterns of thought and action, or project future vision by evaluating the present (Ebirmayer & Mische, 1998, p. 972).
4.3 Structure and Agency
When addressing agency, it is difficult not to avoid a large discussion about an interpenetration between agency and structure. Because of that, I consider relevant to rise three different DNA lines in the back and forth movement between structure and agency: Bourdieu’s theory of practice (1977), Giddens’ structuration (1984), and Archer’s morphogenetics (1995). Their common base idea is that human action is the outcome of structural conditioning, still both maintain reciprocal relationships (Lacroix, 2014, p. 17).
However, they differ in accordance to each philosophical foundation4 and their divergent standpoints. On one hand, Bourdieu analyses the relation agency-structure through the groups’ (class) intersubjectivity (habitus). On the other hand, Giddens adopts the subjective viewpoint of actors. Moreover, Archer focuses on structures as an objective reality affected by people’s actions (Lacroix, 2014, p. 10).
The relationship between structure and agency reflects a structural determinism (how structure may influence agency) and voluntarism (how agency may influence structure) (Shanahan, 2000), and in a middle stand point, how agency is situated in social structure and context (Elder, Johnson & Crosnoe, 2003).
Firstly, structure may influence agency as shaping its opportunity, directly influencing the variable agency. In this scenario, agency is shaped by institutional factors, possible when there are contradictory institutional logics, or when institutionalized means and goals are disconnected. Or a combination of both (Kristiansen, 2014, p. 3). In this sense, “the higher the degree of loose coupling, the greater the opportunity for agency” (Moen, 2013, pp. 192-193).
In that sense, agency is seen as a factor that mediates structural conditions and a specific outcome, as well as a false factor in explaining an outcome (Kristiansen, 2014, p. 5). This notion
4 Bourdieu’s theory of practice: critical realism, the epistemological standpoint; Giddens’ structuration: actors’ subjectivity, collective intersubjectivity or structures’ objectivity; and Archer’s morphogenetics: functionalism, structuralism, structuration (Lacroix, 2014, p. 10-17).
20 reflects an idea of socially situated agency. It means that the ability to pursue a course of action is given by constraints and opportunities captured by the favorable circumstances for agency (Kristiansen, 2014, p. 4). This perspective is associated with the term “bounded agency” (Evans 2002; Evans 2007; Shanahan 2000), which is also founded in youth studies. In this area, it has been evaluated as contradictory meaning. This is, if agency is bounded by structures, it can not be an inherent feature founded in certain behaviors and, at the same time, something acquired from the outside world (Coffey & Farrugia, 2014, p. 465).
Secondly, agency may influence structure. Marshall (2005) develops an understanding of agency as “overcoming resistance” (p. 64), which means that agency operates if a given action is outside the habitual course of action. It intends to oppose agency and social structure in a dialectic relationship, which can be potentially starting a social change as individuals may choose which set of opportunity or constraints they confront (Kristiansen, 2014, p. 5-6). However, this view has been criticized in the field of youth studies (Raby, 2005; Coffey & Farrugia, 2014) as well.
On one hand, Coffey & Farrugia (2014) argue that agency in tension with structure situates agency as a way of discussing young people’s resistance, which is motivated by the commitment to critique structures that young people may resist. But also, it does not capture instances when agency conforms to structure, which portrays young people lacking active subjectivity and erases the efforts to build lives in conditions they did not choose (p. 466-472). On the other hand, agency can be confused with actions per se, as Kristiansen (2014) sustains “with the aim of advancing agency as an explanation, this approach is clearly not fruitful. Agency is not a set of actions. It is rather a precursor or antecedent to actions” (p. 6).
To sum up, there is a tendency to consider agency and social structure as contradictory or separate entities (Eteläpelto et al., 2013). However, Emirbayer & Mische (1998) underline that “many theorists have failed to distinguish agency as an analytical category in its own right with distinctive theoretical dimensions and temporally variable social manifestations” (p. 963). In this sense, the authors try to go beyond the discussion and distinguish the interplay of the different elements of agency and how this may vary within different structural contexts of action (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 963).
Agency can be situated in a social context as a middle stand point, that suggests that “agency always takes place within a social context that influences it. Therefore, the relationship between agency and structure should be viewed as an interplay” (Kristiansen, 2014, p. 7).
21 For empirical research, this approach can take into account possible interaction effects and reciprocity between structure and agency. In this line, one attempt at advancing agency for empirical research is to consider agency as a temporal process (Ebirmayer & Mische, 1998).
4.4 Operationalization
This subsection aims to explain how agency has been considered in the analysis. In addition, I feel appropriate to mention that the situational context taken into consideration is based on the previous section (2.0 Contextual Background), that interprets the approach framed in the “Recommendations for action to deal with unaccompanied minors” (Handlungsempfehlungen
zum Umgang mit unbegleiteten Minderjährigen) written by the Federal Work Group for State
Youth Offices (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Landesjugendämter) in the 2nd edition from 2017. Agency was measured through the elements that compose the chordial triad, namely their agentic orientations through habit (past), imagination (future), and judgment (present).
In the case of habit, young people remain lived experiences. It can be through selective attention when subjects focus (conscious or unconscious) only on a small area of reality to simplify what is needed to sustain an interaction. Also through recognition of types identifying similarities between past and present experiences by “enveloping” them. When having directed attention, subjects identify sameness, likeness, or analogy with, for example, aspects of persons, relationships, contexts, or events from the past. As a consequence, it contributes to a sense of continuity and order. These typifications are normally located to categories of identity and value that include or exclude, meaning acceptability and non-acceptability (Ebirmayer & Mische, 1998, p. 978-981).
On one side, the transmission of habit emerges to the future as expectation, it is a memory anticipation that past patterns will repeat allowing relationships to be sustained and reproduced over time. On the other side, the present emerges through maneuver among repertoires when practices of habitual activity are selected and become tacit and unreflective. It allows to get things done through habitual interaction in an ongoing dialogue with situational contingencies (Ebirmayer & Mische, 1998, p. 978-981).
In the case of imagination, through narrative construction or symbolic recomposition, individuals make decisions based on an imaginative scenario. It is a projection of possible scenarios of action. After this, subjects give a hypothetical resolution, speculate with a resolution that will adequately respond to the moral, practical, and emotional concerns arising from lived conflicts. On one hand, imagination is related to the past through identification,
22 possible developments are located against previous typifications from past experience to clarify motives, goals and intentions, and see possible future constraints. On the other hand, it is related to the present through experimentation, where alternative courses of action are tentatively achieved in response to a situation. In this case, a hypothetical resolution may be tested (Ebirmayer & Mische, 1998, p. 988-991).
Finally, in the case of judgment, it involves the problematization, characterization, and deliberation of a particular situation. When a problematic circumstance is recognized as ambiguous, unsettled, or unresolved must be related to principles or typifications from past experiences which are characterized in some way. In turn, it is deliberated how best respond in light of goals and projects. In this sense, deliberation aims toward decision, namely the resolution to act in a moment and place in a particular way, and execution the capacity to act rightly and effectively. On one hand, judgment is related to the past based on a characterization of a given situation. On the other hand, it is related to the future through the deliberation of a possible trajectory of action where individuals take into consideration possible scenarios by evaluating the consequences (Ebirmayer & Mische, 1998, p. 997-1000).
23
Figure 1. Social engagement. Analysis framework
5. Methodology and Method
5.1 Research DesignThis study follows a qualitative analysis and leans toward an inductive approach. As long as my interest lies in understanding “how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences”. Therefore, a qualitative analysis provides with a better knowledge about a small piece of the human world (Merriam, 2009, p. 5).
The intention is to map the reality through an inductive research, because it facilitates some evidence for the conclusion deriving from specific observations to general principles. This study starts with a question, “a position in which we have no real idea of what might turn out
24 to be plausible, relevant or helpful about the subject of interest” (6 & Bellamy, 2012, p. 76). However, even if it can be difficult to strictly use one of the approaches, inductive or deductive, as they often overlap (6 & Bellamy, 2012, p. 76), I might say that I attempt to minimize the bias to be as inductive as possible in order to better capture the reality of my informants.
Their realities can not be regarded as definitive in terms of a constructionist ontological position. In this sense, they are an ongoing accomplishment of social actors rather than something external to them and that totally constrains them (Bryman, 2016, p. 30).
5.2 Method
5.2.1 Semi-structured Online and Phone Interviews
I have conducted eight semi-structured online interviews. They are the primary source of data for this study. I have decided to collect data through semi-structured interviews because of its logic, as “it is linked to the expectation that the interviewed subjects’ viewpoints are more likely to be expressed in an openly designed interview situation than in a standardized interview or a questionnaire” (Flick, 2009, p.150).
The logic of semi-structured interviews not only fits with the ontology and epistemology, but also follows the nature of the research questions.
This study that leans toward an inductive approach where theorizing is based on the content of data generated accepting the reality of causation (Barbour, 2014), it is through semi-structured interviews also compatible with a constructivist epistemology, as there is no ultimate objective reality. In this sense, the social world exists in the eye of the beholder, “own creation, incomplete and fallible” (Maxwell, 2012, p. 657) since individuals are free to make their attributions (Barbour, 2014).
The structure of the interviews was based on open-ended questions varying the order of them according to each informant. Besides, I have formulated the questions similarly to all of the informants (see Appendix B and C, Interview guides).
Furthermore, the questions and talking points I developed were linked with the theoretical framework. The interviews came to focus on self-understanding of age assessment, narratives about the qualified interview and medical assessment (for one case), and their knowledge about the procedure. Questions about the acquirement of documents in the country of origin. As well as feelings about being a young person in the country of origin and Germany. Additionally, future prospects at the time of arrival. On the other side, I have posed the focus on two
25 interviews with professionals working in Youth Welfare Offices on the practical implementation of the procedure, its regulation, and challenges.
The nature of the research questions allowed me to work with this method to better explore in a flexible and fluid structure “about the experiences, opinions, feelings, and knowledge”; “detailed descriptions of people’s activities, behaviors, actions” (Patton, 2002, p. 4) related to age assessments (DeMarrais, 2004, p. 55). Even more, the interviews let me find out things that I can not directly observe, specifically entering into the other person’s perspective (Patton, 2002, pp. 340-341). I was able to reconstruct events by asking my informants to think back over how certain events unfolded in relation to their current situation and encouraged my participants to reflect back on their lives (Bryman, 2016, p. 494).
The interviews were mediated by Internet technology and by phone. The ones mediated by internet were similar to an in-person interview, since my informants and I saw each other, a visual element was present in the exchange. Online and phone interviews added flexibility to accommodate schedules as well as removed the necessity to mobilize and have physical contact, which at the time was very restrictive because of different measures in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (April 2020). Moreover, the use of Internet encouraged people to agree to be interviewed (Bryman, 2016, p. 492).
However, it is also necessary to mention that I have encountered some limitations. Even though my informants and I have not registered significant technological problems with the use of online platforms, some fluctuations in the quality of the connection sometimes caused a break-up of speech (Bryman, 2016, p. 492). That made transcription difficult at times, but not impossible.
I conducted seven of the interviews in German in order to find a common language between me, the researcher, the young people, and the professionals working in the Youth Welfare Offices. However, I should note that, in the case of the interviews with the young people, German was not the mother tongue for neither me nor interviewees. I conducted the remaining eighth in English/French with simultaneous translation.
In order to ensure any miscommunication and the nuances of my informants’ narratives, I was flexible in my approach not only varying the order of questions according to the flow of the narratives, but also following up leads, and clearing up inconsistencies in answers (Bryman, 2016, p. 483). I also tried to paraphrase or used synonyms to clear up doubts in some cases.
26 5.3 Material
5.3.1 Selection criteria
Experiences of young people who came as unaccompanied minors to Germany without documents to prove their age were my focus of attention. To choose the sample, I particularly emphasized the lack of documents, as I considered that it would increase the probability to reach a more diverse sample with people who have experienced not only a qualified interview, but also a medical examination. Experiences of unaccompanied minors possessing documents are automatically allowed to prove their age.
Then, the criteria to select my informants was a person who had the previous characteristics regardless of their country of origin, gender, ethnicity, or religion. I did not take these aspects into consideration. However, my informants were all male, from Gambia, Ivory Coast, Somalia, and Afghanistan. The conceptual thread that ties them all together can be seen with more detail in the following section.
In addition, regarding the small sample of the professionals, I emphasized on people with expertise in the procedure of age assessment working in a Youth Welfare Office in Germany.
5.3.3 Presentation of Informants
Here below I present the young people who participated in the interviews whose names have been anonymized with the use of pseudonyms. The age of the target group ranges between 19 and 25 years old. The reason for selecting this age gap respects the intention of not interviewing minors:
INFORMANT OF ORIGIN COUNTRY PLACE OF AGE ASSESSMENT YEAR OF AGE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE RECOGNISED AS UMA
1) Bairo
No
docs Gambia Hamburg 2015
3 Qualified
interviews passed
2) Drissa
No
docs Ivory Coast
Oldenburg (Niedersachsen) 2016 Qualified interview passed 3) Basirou No
docs Gambia Hamburg 2015
Qualified interview + Medical examination passed 4) Aaden No
docs Somalia Kassel (Hessen) 2014
Qualified interview passed 5) Abed No docs Afghanistan Stuttgart (Baden-Württemberg) 2014 Qualified interview passed 6) Faireh No docs Afghanistan Stuttgart (Baden-Württemberg) 2014 Qualified interview passed
