Asylsuchende im Blickfeld der Behörde. Explizites und implizites Wissen in der Herstellung von Asylbescheiden in Deutschland

Schittenhelm, Karin

doi:10.1007/s41059-015-0012-x

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We started out with a focus on the EASO Training Curriculum (ETC) and analysed both the conceptual development of selected training modules and their practical implementation. Particular attention was devoted to an analysis of existing administrative practices in Sweden and Germany (Schneider and Wottrich 2017;Schittenhelm 2015;Schittenhelm and Schneider 2017). More recently, we have begun to focus more broadly on the development and gradual consolidation of cross-national, inter-agency cooperation, for example in the framework of the Dublin procedure.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

EASO—Support Office or Asylum Authority? Boundary Disputes in the European Field of Asylum Administration

Schneider

Nieswandt

2018

Österreich Z Soziol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in 2010, a new collective actor entered the European asylum policy arena. Although the agency commands limited financial and personnel resources, and has no formal powers to directly interfere in the decision-making practices of asylum authorities across Europe, its mandate and reach of influence are a subject of recurrent dispute. We consider the struggles surrounding the EASO's role and position as manifestations of enduring conflicts of recognition, valuation and distribution in a Europeanised asylum administrative field. By analysing civil servants' position-takings vis-à-vis the EASO, we demonstrate that officials from a variety of member states are united by a shared belief in disinterested, apolitical bureaucratic rules of procedure, based on a notion of 'expertise' that transcends national boundaries and supersedes national concerns. At the same time, the discursive boundary work invested by the interviewees draws on spatial, temporal and procedural categories of differentiation, highlighting complex processes of ongoing relational positionings and practices of distinction. The corresponding hierarchies and inequalities are further indications of a transnational administrative field with its own principles of valuation.The interviews on which this article is based were conducted in the context of the research project 'The European Field of Asylum Administrations: transnational practices between cooperation and conflict' (University of Siegen) and funded by the German Research Foundation in the framework of the research unit 'Horizontal Europeanization' (FOR1539). The authors would like to thank Marius Wacker for his contribution to the collection of data and analysis, without which this article would not have come into being. We also thank Christian Lahusen and Karin Schittenhelm and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article.S. Schneider ( ) · C. Nieswandt ( ) Philosophische Fakultät,

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

EASO—Support Office or Asylum Authority? Boundary Disputes in the European Field of Asylum Administration

Schneider

Nieswandt

2018

Österreich Z Soziol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What was counted and what was not affected the ways in which caseworkers perceived asylum applicants and their own work. Some interviewees talked about applicants only as workloads to be processed, and cases were described as difficult or easy depending on the anticipated time it was going to take to close the file (Schittenhelm 2015;Schittenhelm and Schneider 2017). Depending on organisational prioritisation and individual coping strategies, some cases were treated more quickly than others.…”

Section: Organised Detachmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies have investigated asylum authorities 'from within' and pointed to the significance of individual and collective routines in dealing with the uncertainties, ambiguities and dilemmas of asylum procedures (Affolter 2017;Dahlvik 2014a;Probst 2012;Scheffer 2001;Schittenhelm 2015;Wettergren and Wikström 2014). They have stressed the extent to which a "culture of disbelief " impacts on decision-making-practices within the authorities and shown that the categorisations that caseworkers use in their daily work are to a great extent determined by organisational subcultures rather than by law or politics (Jubany 2011;Good 2015;Whyte 2015;Wikström and Johansson 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Becoming a Decision-Maker, or: “Don’t Turn Your Heart into a Den of Thieves and Murderers”

Schneider

2018

Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a qualitative study in the German asylum authority, this chapter focuses on how caseworkers are taught to deal with the uncertainties and quandaries of asylum administrative decision-making. The asylum administration is conceptualised as a relatively autonomous field in which ongoing processes of boundary work take place. Amongst others, these revolve around caseworkers’ emotional involvement and their creativity in handling the ‘stuff’ of casework. Focusing on references to emotions and materialities during a training course for decision-makers, the analysis demonstrates how they may be used both to counteract the unintended consequences of rationalisation and to delegate responsibility for dealing with conflicting demands onto the individual caseworker. Even seemingly mundane aspects of casework may thus become an object of struggles around bureaucratic autonomy and accountability.

show abstract

“…Hinzu kommt, dass die Verwaltungspraxis in vielen Aspekten durch informelle Wissensbestände und Routinen gekennzeichnet ist. Entsprechende Befunde zeigen sich beim Verhalten der "case worker" während der Anhörungen, der Beweiswürdigung und Bescheiderstellung (Schittenhelm 2015;Dahlvik 2016). Doch auch in den stärker formalisierten Verfahrensbereichen lassen sich nationale und behördeninterne Varianzen beobachten, etwa bei der Nutzung der europäischen Datenbanken mit Informationen zu den Herkunftsländern (COI-Datenbanken; Gibb und Good 2013).…”

Section: Europäische Asylverwaltung Als Feldunclassified

“…Gerade die Überfülle an rechtlichen und administrativen Vorgaben kann Entscheidungsspielräume vergrößern (Evans und Harris 2004). "Case worker" müssen, um den Arbeitsanforderungen gerecht zu werden (Schittenhelm 2015), ein implizites Sach-und Verfahrenswissen entwickeln, das nicht selten durch die behördeninterne Sozialisation der Neulinge aufgebaut wird. Schließlich bleiben berufliche Standards "guter Arbeit" ein wichtiger Referenzpunkt für die Arbeit der "street level bureaucrats" (Schneider 2014 …”

Section: Europäische Asylverwaltung Als Feldunclassified

Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Verwaltungsfeld? Zur Soziologie der Bürokratisierung Europas am Beispiel des Gemeinsamen Europäischen Asylsystems

Lahusen

2016

Berlin J Soziol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Der Beitrag befasst sich mit der Bürokratisierung Europas und sucht die Frage zu beantworten, ob der europäische Integrationsprozess jenseits einer europäischen Vergemeinschaftung legislativer und judikativer Funktionen auch das Verwaltungshandeln bis auf den "street level" hinunter verändert. Towards a European administrative field? On the sociology of bureaucratization of Europe using the example of the "Common European Asylum System" Abstract The article deals with the bureaucratization of Europe. Looking beyond the policy and judicial levels, it aims to ascertain whether the European integration process also affects the "street level" of administrative practices. Pierre Bourdieu's theory of practice and fields is used to transcend the institutionalist bias of previous research and focus more attentively on administrative practices. The analysis looks at the Common European Asylum System to illustrate that bureaucratization unfolds through the interconnection of practices between member states and the establishment of joint administrative procedures. Especially the Dublin Regulation has implemented cross-national administrative routines of record keeping, case management and responsibility sharing. These routines are highly formalized and objectified. They operate on the basis of electronic databases and software programs that standardize work processes and reduce the space of decision-making. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of these developments.

show abstract

Asylsuchende im Blickfeld der Behörde. Explizites und implizites Wissen in der Herstellung von Asylbescheiden in Deutschland

Cited by 13 publications

References 16 publications

EASO—Support Office or Asylum Authority? Boundary Disputes in the European Field of Asylum Administration

EASO—Support Office or Asylum Authority? Boundary Disputes in the European Field of Asylum Administration

Becoming a Decision-Maker, or: “Don’t Turn Your Heart into a Den of Thieves and Murderers”

Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Verwaltungsfeld? Zur Soziologie der Bürokratisierung Europas am Beispiel des Gemeinsamen Europäischen Asylsystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About