Academic Analysis – Page 34 – MIL Submissions Engine

November 14, 2025

Hybrid workers are putting in 90 fewer minutes of work on Fridays – and an overall shift toward custom schedules could be undercutting collaboration

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Christos Makridis, Associate Research Professor of Information Systems, Arizona State University; Institute for Humane Studies

It gets lonely if you stick around an office until late afternoon on Fridays. Dimitri Otis/Stone via Getty Images

Do your office, inbox and calendar feel like a ghost town on Friday afternoons? You’re not alone.

I’m a labor economist who studies how technology and organizational change affect productivity and well-being. In a study published in an August 2025 working paper, I found that the way people allocate their time to work has changed profoundly since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

For example, among professionals in occupations that can be done remotely, 35% to 40% worked remotely on Thursdays and Fridays in 2024, compared with only 15% in 2019. On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, nearly 30% worked remotely, versus 10% to 15% five years earlier.

And white-collar employees have also become more likely to log off from work early on Fridays. They’re starting the weekend sooner than before the pandemic, whether while working at an office or remotely as the workweek comes to a close. Why is that happening? I suspect that remote work has diluted the barrier between the workweek and the weekend – especially when employees aren’t working at the office.

The changing rhythm of work

The American Time Use Survey, which the U.S. Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts annually, asks thousands of Americans to recount how they spent the previous day, minute by minute. It tracks how long they spend working, commuting, doing housework and caregiving.

Because these diaries cover both weekdays and weekends, and include information about whether respondents could work remotely, this survey offers the most detailed picture available of how the rhythms of work and life are changing. This data also allows me to see where people conduct each activity, making it possible to estimate the share of time American professionals spend working from home.

When I examined how the typical workday changed between 2019 and 2024, I saw dramatic shifts in where, when and how people worked throughout that period.

Millions of professionals who had never worked remotely suddenly did so full time at the height of the pandemic. Hybrid arrangements have since become common; many employees spend two or three days a week at home and the rest in the office.

I found another change: From 2019 to 2024, the average number of minutes worked on Fridays fell by about 90 minutes in jobs that can be done from home. That change accounts for other factors, such as a professional’s age, education and occupation.

The decline for employees with jobs that are harder to do remotely was much smaller.

Even if you just look at the raw data, U.S. employees with the potential to work remotely were working about 7½ hours per weekday on average in 2024, down about 13 minutes from 2019. These averages mask substantial variation between those with jobs that can more easily be done remotely and those who must report to the office most of the time.

For example, among workers in the more remote-intensive jobs, they spent 7 hours, 6 minutes working on Fridays in 2024, but 8 hours, 24 minutes in 2019.

That means I found, looking at the raw data, that Americans were working 78 fewer minutes on Fridays in 2024 than five years earlier. And controlling for other factors (e.g., demographics), this is actually an even larger 90-minute difference for employees who can do their jobs remotely.

In contrast, those employees were working longer hours on Wednesdays. They worked 8 hours, 24 minutes on Wednesdays in 2024, half an hour more than the 7 hours, 54 minutes logged on that day of the week in 2019. Clearly, there’s a shift from some Friday hours, with employees making up the bulk of the difference on other weekdays.

Fridays have long been a little different

Although employees are shifting some of this skipped work time to other days of the week, most of the reduction – whether at the office or at home – has gone to leisure.

To be sure, Fridays have always been a little different than other weekdays. Many bosses allowed their staff to dress more casually on Fridays and permitted people to depart early, long before the pandemic began. But the ability to work remotely has evidently amplified that tendency.

This informal easing into the weekend, once confined to office norms, can be a morale booster. But as it has expanded, it’s become more individualized through remote and hybrid arrangements.

Those workers in remote-intensive occupations who are single, young or male reduced their working hours across the board the most, relative to 2019, although their time on the job increased a bit in 2024.

Pencils on a desk spell out TGIF, an abbreviation of thank God it's Friday. — Office workers have always been eager to get started with their weekends.
Epoxydude/fStop via Getty Images

The benefits and limits of flexibility

There are a few causal studies on the effects of remote work on productivity and well-being in the workplace, including some in which I participated. A general takeaway is that people tend to spend less time collaborating and more time on independent tasks when they work remotely.

That’s fine for some professions, but in roles that depend on frequent coordination, that pattern can complicate communication or weaken team cohesion. Colocation – being physically present with your colleagues – does matter for some types of tasks.

But even if productivity doesn’t necessarily suffer, every hour of unscheduled, independent work can be an hour not spent in coordinated effort with colleagues. That means what happens when people clock out or log off early on a Friday – whether at home or at their office – depends on the nature of their work.

In occupations that require continuous handoffs – such as journalism, health care or customer service – staggered schedules can actually improve efficiency by spreading coverage across more hours in the day.

But for employees in project-based or collaborative roles that depend on overlapping hours for brainstorming, review or decision-making, uneven schedules can create friction. When colleagues are rarely online at the same time, small delays can compound and slow collective progress.

The problem arises when flexible work becomes so individualized that it erodes shared rhythms altogether. The time-use data I analyzed suggests that remote-capable employees now spread their work more unevenly across the week, with less overlap in real time.

Eventually, that can make it harder to sustain the informal interactions and team cohesion that once happened organically when everyone left the office together at the end of the week. As some of my other research has shown, that also can reduce job satisfaction and increase turnover in jobs requiring greater coordination.

Businesswoman interacts with her with teammates in meeting at their office. — For many professions, team interaction is easier to have when people work at an office.
Morsa Images/DigitalVision via Getty Images

The future of work

To be sure, allowing employees to do remote work and have some scheduling flexibility on any day of the week isn’t necessarily bad for business.

The benefits – in terms of work-life balance, autonomy, recruitment and reducing turnover – can be very real.

Flexible and remote arrangements expand the pool of potential applicants by freeing employers from strict geographic limits. A company based in Chicago can now hire a software engineer in Boise or a designer in Atlanta without requiring relocation.

This wider reach increases the supply of qualified candidates. It can – particularly in jobs requiring more coordination – also improve retention by allowing employees to adjust their work schedules around family or personal needs rather than having to choose between relocating or quitting.

What’s more, many women who might have had to exit the labor force altogether when they became parents have been able to remain employed, at least on a part-time basis.

But in my view, the erosion of Fridays may go beyond what began as an informal tradition – leaving the office early before the weekend begins. It is part of a broader shift toward individualized schedules that expand autonomy but reduce shared time for coordination.

Christos Makridis is also a senior researcher for Gallup, and provides economics research counsel for think tanks.

– ref. Hybrid workers are putting in 90 fewer minutes of work on Fridays – and an overall shift toward custom schedules could be undercutting collaboration – https://theconversation.com/hybrid-workers-are-putting-in-90-fewer-minutes-of-work-on-fridays-and-an-overall-shift-toward-custom-schedules-could-be-undercutting-collaboration-267921

November 14, 2025

Can the world quit coal?

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stacy D. VanDeveer, Professor of Global Governance & Human Security, UMass Boston

A fisherman looks at the Suralaya coal-fired power plant in Cilegon, Indonesia, in 2023. Ronald Siagian/AFP via Getty Images

As world leaders and thousands of researchers, activists and lobbyists meet in Brazil at the 30th annual United Nations climate conference, there is plenty of frustration that the world isn’t making progress on climate change fast enough.

Globally, greenhouse gas emissions and global temperatures continue to rise. In the U.S., the Trump administration, which didn’t send an official delegation to the climate talks, is rolling back environmental and energy regulations and pressuring other countries to boost their use of fossil fuels – the leading driver of climate change.

Coal use is also rising, particularly in India and China. And debates rage about justice and the future for coal-dependent communities as coal burning and coal mining end.

But underneath the bad news is a set of complex, contradictory and sometimes hopeful developments.

The problem with coal

Coal is the dirtiest source of fossil fuel energy and a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, making it bad not just for the climate but also for human health. That makes it a good target for cutting global emissions.

A swift drop in coal use is the main reason U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell in recent years as natural gas and renewable energy became cheaper.

Today, nearly a third of all countries worldwide have pledged to phase out their unabated coal-burning power plants in the coming years, including several countries you might not expect. Germany, Spain, Malaysia, the Czech Republic – all have substantial coal reserves and coal use today, yet they are among the more than 60 countries that have joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance and set phase-out deadlines between 2025 and 2040.

Several governments in the European Union and Latin America are now coal phase-out leaders, and EU greenhouse gas emissions continue to fall.

Progress, and challenges ahead

So, where do things stand for phasing out coal burning globally? The picture is mixed. For example:

The accelerating deployment of renewable energy, energy storage, electric vehicles and energy efficiency globally offer hope that global emissions are on their way to peaking. More than 90% of the new electricity capacity installed worldwide in 2024 came from clean energy sources. However, energy demand is also growing quickly, so new renewable power does not always replace older fossil fuel plants or prevent new ones, including coal.
China now burns more coal than the rest of the world combined, and it continues to build new coal plants. But China is also a driving force in the dramatic growth in solar and wind energy investments and electricity generation inside China and around the world. As the industry leader in renewable energy technology, it has a strong economic interest in solar and wind power’s success around the world.
While climate policies that can reduce coal use are being subject to backlash politics and policy rollbacks in the U.S. and several European democracies, many other governments around the world continue to enact and implement cleaner energy and emissions reduction policies.

Phasing out coal isn’t easy, or happening as quickly as studies show is needed to slow climate change.

To meet the 2015 Paris Agreement’s goals of limiting global warming to well under 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial times, research shows that the world will need to rapidly reduce nearly all fossil fuel burning and associated emissions – and it is not close to being on track.

Ensuring a just transition for coal communities

Many countries with coal mining operations worry about the transition for coal-dependent communities as mines shut down and jobs disappear.

No one wants a repeat of then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s destruction of British coal communities in the 1980s in her effort to break the mineworkers union. Mines rapidly closed, and many coal communities and regions were left languishing in economic and social decline for decades.

Two men put coal chunks into a sack with a power plant in the background. — Two men collect coal for cooking outside the Komati Power Station, where they used to work, in 2024, in Komati, South Africa. Both lost their jobs when Eskom closed the power plant in 2022 under international pressure to cut emissions.
Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images

Other regions have also struggled as coal facilities shut down.

But as more countries phase out coal, they offer examples of how to ensure coal-dependent workers, communities, regions and entire countries benefit from a just transition to a coal-free system.

At local and national levels, research shows that careful planning, grid updates and reliable financing schemes, worker retraining, small-business development and public funding of coal worker pensions and community and infrastructure investments can help set coal communities on a path for prosperity.

A fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty?

At the global climate talks, several groups, including the Powering Past Coal Alliance and an affiliated Coal Transition Commission, have been pushing for a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty. It would legally bind governments to a ban on new fossil fuel expansion and eventually eliminate fossil fuel use.

The world has affordable renewable energy technologies with which to replace coal-fired electricity generation – solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels in most places. There are still challenges with the transition, but also clear ways forward. Removing political and regulatory obstacles to building renewable energy generation and transmission lines, boosting production of renewable energy equipment, and helping low-income countries manage the upfront cost with more affordable financing can help expand those technologies more widely around the world.

Shifting to renewable energy also has added benefits: It’s much less harmful to the health of those who live and work nearby than mining and burning coal is.

So can the world quit coal? Yes, I believe we can. Or, as Brazilians say, “Sim, nós podemos.”

Stacy D. VanDeveer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Can the world quit coal? – https://theconversation.com/can-the-world-quit-coal-269772

November 14, 2025

Iran’s capital faces unprecedented water shortages and even possible evacuation. What changes could help?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sanam Mahoozi, Research associate, City St George’s, University of London

Iran is facing its most severe water crisis in more than six decades.

Major dams supplying drinking water to provinces with millions of residents are nearly empty, and groundwater reserves have been depleted. Many cities have endured an entire autumn without a single drop of rain.

In the capital, Tehran, and in Mashhad, the country’s second-largest city, in the north-east, some reservoirs are at less than 5% and 3% capacity, respectively.

Authorities have begun cutting off water at night in the capital, according to reports. Iran’s president Masoud Pezeshkian has even warned of possible evacuations if “it doesn’t rain soon”. Images have surfaced on social media showing university students protesting water shortages on campuses.

Water shortages pose a serious security risk in Iran. In the summer of 2021, protests broke out in Khuzestan province in the south-west of the country due to severe water shortages. A few months later, farmers in Isfahan gathered to demonstrate over the Zayandeh-Rud River drying up.

Today in Shiraz (home to iconic cultural landmarks such as Persepolis) as well as the historic cities of Isfahan and Yazd, land subsidence is cracking buildings, collapsing roads and threatening monuments as excessive groundwater extraction weakens the soil beneath them.

More than 90% of Iran’s water is extracted for farming, with much of it lost to inefficient irrigation practices. Studies show the country’s ambitious dam-building campaign, intended to enhance food and energy self-sufficiency, has disrupted natural ecosystems and contributed to the drying up of major wetlands and lakes. These include Lake Urmia, once the Middle East’s largest salt lake, now reduced to a bed of salt that could fuel dust and salt storms across the region.

While climate change has contributed to the worsening drought, Iran’s water crisis has mainly been caused by poor management. The government’s focus on agricultural expansion and dam construction has often come at the expense of sustainability, while limited regulation of groundwater extraction including widespread drilling of around one million wells, half of which are illegal, has severely depleted aquifers across the country.

Iran’s foreign policy and isolation from the international community are also key drivers of its water crisis. Sanctions have meant that Iran has limited access to new technologies. These include advanced irrigation systems, high-resolution satellite monitoring such as InSAR data (which can detect land subsidence), cloud-based AI platforms for detailed urban or infrastructure-level monitoring, smart sensors, and precision agriculture tools.

Iran’s water levels are so low, that supplies are being turned off regularly.

The absence of such technologies has deepened inefficiencies, accelerated land subsidence and exacerbated the depletion of vital water resources across the country. Foreign investors are also hesitant to fund projects in Iran because of sanctions, further blocking opportunities for innovation.

Iran’s divided decision-making system has made the problem worse. The ministry of energy, the ministry of agriculture and the department of environment often operate with different priorities. One builds infrastructure for hydropower, another pushes for farmland expansion, while the environmental office doesn’t have enough resources and power to make major changes. These conflicting agendas have created confusion, inefficiency and widespread overuse of water.

But Iran’s water crisis goes beyond its borders. For instance, the country shares bodies of water with Afghanistan and Iraq. Disputes over water, such as the long-running disagreement with the Taliban over the Helmand River, have already increased tensions.

As lakes and rivers dry up, their exposed beds could turn into vast sources of sand and dust. These particles can travel thousands of kilometres, crossing national borders and degrading soil and air quality across the wider region.

What begins as a local water crisis in Iran then has the potential to become a transboundary environmental threat, affecting millions beyond its border, from Sistan and Baluchistan and Khuzestan to neighbouring countries downwind.

Can anything be done?

Scientists, academics, and the media have discussed the causes and consequences of Iran’s water crisis for a long time. What’s talked about far less, however, are the potential solutions – and whether anything can actually be done to address parts of the crisis and answer the question on the minds of more than 80 million people: Is there still hope?

The short answer is yes.

Assuming the country gains access to modern technology and finance through changes to its foreign policy (which means for instance that sanctions are removed), this could turn the tide. In the short term, the priority must be halting groundwater depletion through strict monitoring, smart meters on wells, and integrating satellite data with on-the-ground measurements.

Real-time water accounting – using tools such as space satellites Grace and Sentinel – can identify critical areas and guide emergency action. The government must also inspect areas affected by subsidence or over-extraction. This might include schools, which have suffered lots of problems with subsidence historically, causing cracked walls and other damage. Then it must take immediate action, including temporary closures or relocations where safety is at risk.

Mid-term priorities should focus on improving monitoring and efficiency. Managed aquifer recharge (a strategy that deliberately directs water into underground reservoirs) using stormwater or treated wastewater, precision irrigation, digital agriculture, and AI-based irrigation scheduling can dramatically reduce losses of water

AI and digital twin technologies (digital replicas of environments) have proved to be highly effective in sustainable natural resource management.

An example of this is how the €10 million (£8.8 million) EU-funded AI4SoilHealth flagship project leverages AI and big data analytics to monitor and quantify soil health across Europe. Managing water resources is no exception. Integrating AI-driven models and using new digital tools can enhance forecasting, optimise usage, and help inform policy decisions.

Long-term recovery also depends on governance. Iran needs a unified national water authority that aligns energy, agriculture, and environmental goals around sustainability.

Legal caps on groundwater abstraction, and economic diversification away from water-intensive crops are essential. Incentivising efficient irrigation and wastewater reuse plus adjusting water pricing to reflect scarcity would help.

The country must diversify its economy so that fewer livelihoods depend on water-intensive industries, such as farming. Together, these steps could stabilise Iran’s water systems and prevent further environmental, social, and economic damage.

Iran’s environmental crisis is human-made and so is the solution. With these changes, the country could secure its water systems, and give its public more security.

Nima Shokri receives funding from European Commission for the AI4SoilHealth project.

Sanam Mahoozi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Iran’s capital faces unprecedented water shortages and even possible evacuation. What changes could help? – https://theconversation.com/irans-capital-faces-unprecedented-water-shortages-and-even-possible-evacuation-what-changes-could-help-269637

November 14, 2025

What a decade of research reveals about why people don’t trust media in the digital age

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Catherine Happer, Professor of Media Sociology, Director, Glasgow University Media Group, University of Glasgow

That trust in media is declining throughout the world is almost an unquestioned truth today. But researchers have found it hard to clearly demonstrate how we went from an era of high trust in 20th-century media to one of low trust in the digital age.

The ways people engage with media and where they go for trusted information are changing. From 2011 to 2024, my colleagues and I at the Glasgow University Media Group have charted these trends through a series of focus group studies.

Our findings, summarised in my book The Construction of Public Opinion in a Digital Age, suggest that many people feel journalism today represents the interests of the powerful and does not speak for them.

For audiences of 20th-century broadcasting and press, trust largely rested on what we might call a leap of faith. With only a small number of news outlets – and where organisations like the BBC were given exclusive access to politicians and experts – there were few alternatives for audiences to turn to for information. Most people didn’t have access to other sources or direct experience of what was reported in the news – though when they did, they trusted news reports less.

Traditional media outlets now rely on digital platforms to deliver their content, where it competes with an expanded range of alternative information sources. Mainstream news continues to be led by the perspectives of government, business and economic experts. But digital platforms also allow the voices of social media influencers, independent journalists, activists and everyday users to be heard. This gives audiences easy access to perspectives which directly and regularly challenge the narratives presented in news.

In this environment, journalists working for mainstream news outlets are expected to prove they best represent the interests of their audiences – it is no longer taken as gospel by readers, listeners and viewers.

Focus group participants told me and my colleagues over many hours of discussions that they see mainstream journalism as being bound up with a political system that is failing. For example, journalists may positively report percentage points of economic growth and demand sensible spending plans, but many people simply don’t believe things will get better.

In our most recent study, which analysed media content and audience reception in relation to the cost of living crisis (and will be published as a book in 2026), we found that journalists, in line with politicians, reported the crisis as a short-term shock, temporarily raising food and energy prices.

But our participants understood the crisis as one of long-term decline in their communities and standard of living. In other words, there is a disconnect between the priorities and beliefs of journalists and their audiences.

This disconnect was evident across all demographic groups studied – yet not all are affected to the same degree. Our findings point to a correlation between those most disaffected with the political system – particularly those really struggling – and the likelihood of investing trust in alternative “news” sources.

Where do you get your news?

With more choices than ever for where to get information, people now move between different platforms and devices depending on their needs and circumstances. During the pandemic, millions tuned in to the BBC for the latest health guidance. At other times, people follow algorithm-driven social media feeds for entertainment and news.

Our research indicates, however, that most people have a dominant mode of engagement they rely on to deliver trusted information. These fell largely into three categories in terms of preferences:

1. Mainstream sources

Older and highly-educated participants tended to rely on mainstream news. They invested trust in official forms of evidence and authoritative voices such as politicians and experts.

2. Non-mainstream sources

Lower-income participants were more likely to engage with sources which were seen as free of the mainstream “agenda”. Trust was often invested in partisan podcasters, independent outlets and bloggers – as well as social media posts more generally – who shared their scepticism of public institutions and establishment figures.

3. Mix of sources

Younger participants were more likely to filter news through aggregation apps like Google News, friend endorsements, or simply be led by platform algorithms. They decided who to trust by comparing multiple sources, often giving more credibility to social media influencers who were more relatable and seen to better represent their interests.

It is important to note that these these are generalised categories – it is not the case that all those on low incomes go to social media for their news, nor that young people don’t access mainstream outlets.

A man recording a podcast with a microphone and computer — Is your favourite podcast host a reliable source?
Alex from the Rock/Shutterstock

New information sources are emerging in the context of algorithm-driven platforms which push provocative content to users, as well as political groups which amplify and distort people’s frustrations.

The danger is that as greater numbers move away from traditional news towards information sources without any formal verification processes or proper scrutiny of political parties, uncertainty about who or what to trust may only deepen.

Interestingly, there was one source across our studies which held a unique position of being widely trusted across a broad range of groups. That was the website MoneySavingExpert and its founder, Martin Lewis. As a financial journalist who then set up his consumer website, Lewis brings his expertise to often personalised, everyday financial concerns.

At a time when mainstream journalists are seen to parrot political rhetoric, Lewis positions himself on the side of the public – most notably during the cost of living crisis, making an emotional appeal to politicians to “help people” live on TV.

If journalists want to re-engage with communities lost to online alternatives, the remedy may lie in lessons that can be learned from figures such as Lewis, and his innovative model of trust which seems to work so well for the digital generation.

Catherine Happer receives funding from UKERC, Avatar Alliance Foundation and the University of Glasgow.

– ref. What a decade of research reveals about why people don’t trust media in the digital age – https://theconversation.com/what-a-decade-of-research-reveals-about-why-people-dont-trust-media-in-the-digital-age-264222

November 14, 2025

BBC bias? The Prescott memo falls well short of the standards of impartiality it demands

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Cushion, Professor, Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University

The Prescott memo was leaked to the Daily Telegraph. Steve Travelguide/Shutterstock

The BBC has long weathered accusations of bias. So why did the latest scandal lead to the resignations of the BBC’s director general and head of news? Many have pointed to the BBC board’s internal divisions over how to respond to a memo – leaked to The Daily Telegraph – alleging the BBC had “systemic problems” with its impartiality. A longtime critic of the BBC, the paper prominently reported on its claims.

But there has been limited scrutiny of the document at the centre of the chaos itself, and the man who put it together: Michael Prescott. Prescott was appointed as an external adviser to the BBC’s editorial standards committee, but left earlier this year.

Having repeatedly complained to the BBC board about the broadcaster’s coverage on a range of issues, Prescott grew frustrated that the news division failed to take them seriously. In the memo, he wrote: “What motivated me to prepare this note is despair at inaction by the BBC Executive when issues come to light.”

The memo highlighted the broadcaster’s supposedly imbalanced coverage of the 2024 US election, which was viewed as favouring Democratic over Republican issues and voices. In the reporting of racial diversity and immigration, the memo claimed to identify sloppy journalism and selection bias that underplayed stories about illegal immigration. In coverage of biological sex and gender, Prescott argued the “trans issue” was largely covered from one side that celebrated “the trans experience”.

He also found “simplistic and distorted narratives about British colonial racism [and] slave-trading” that lacked expert voices. And on the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, Prescott concluded that BBC Arabic favoured pro-Hamas perspectives.

How did Prescott conduct this review?

The memo included occasional references to studies (not publicly available to read) produced by David Grossman. Grossman, a former BBC journalist, prepared the reports in his role as a senior editorial adviser to the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee.

There was no information in the memo about how Grossman was appointed to this role. Nor was there transparency about how the specific topics raised were selected for analysis. As journalist David Aaronovitch has pointed out, the Prescott memo does not include “a single word … about the BBC’s political, business, education, health, royalty, home affairs, climate change or crime coverage, or even Ukraine”.

Leaving aside its narrow focus, on the issues Prescott did interrogate, there were no research questions or objectives, method, sample, time frame or, crucially, analytical framework for examining output. While the memo is not a peer-reviewed research paper, to allege “systemic issues”, you need to adopt a more systematic approach to analysing news output across a broad range of issues over time.

As someone who has researched the impartiality of journalism over two decades, I believe these are all essential to transparently conveying how and why you arrived at the conclusions.

BBC under scrutiny.
Anton Garin/Shutterstock

When the BBC has typically commissioned studies, including thematic reviews of news and current affairs output, the focus was justified alongside methodological details.

For example, in a 2024 review of migration coverage, the author – migration researcher Madeleine Sumption – carried out interviews with external experts and BBC journalists and executives, focus group research, samples of BBC content and complaints from audiences. From the outset, she acknowledged the limitations of the study by prominently stating: “The judgements in this report are necessarily subjective.”

Despite Prescott’s report being filled with anecdotal evidence, it included no such disclaimers. The memo featured a response from the BBC about the partial selection of stories: “Cherry-picking a handful of examples or highlighting genuine mistakes in thousands of hours of output on TV and radio does not constitute analysis and is not a true representation of BBC content.”

This was dismissed by Prescott as “defensiveness”. Prescott wrote in the introduction that his “views on the BBC’s treatment of the subjects covered … do not come with any political agenda”.

Researching impartiality robustly

At Cardiff University’s School of Journalism, Media and Culture, my colleagues and I have researched the impartiality and accuracy of journalism over many years. We have, for example, examined the reporting of the four nations of the UK and devolved politics, coverage of election campaigns, the use of statistics, role of fact checking and the allocation of airtime to parties.

Our studies have been robustly designed and transparently explained to ensure they accurately convey how they were conducted and the conclusions drawn.

Take, for instance, our studies of the four nations. These examined the extent to which England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were covered over a set period in UK-wide news. They also looked at how accurately the policy responsibilities of the UK government was reported compared to the decisions by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland executives.

Above all, we found England was often represented as a stand-in for the UK, with a focus on London-centric politics. We also found a lack of clarity about the nations being responsible for governing in areas such as health and education.

We constructively worked with broadcasters and regulators, helping to raise awareness of stories that could be reported more effectively to promote better understanding of politics and public affairs across the UK.

More recently, we systematically tracked how broadcasters allocated airtime to the UK’s major parties. Our research showed the evening TV news bulletins focused more on Reform UK than the Liberal Democrats. Other recent studies demonstrated how the UK’s main political panel shows, such as Question Time, selected panels made up of largely Labour and Conservative guests.

Our studies have systematically tracked patterns of coverage over long periods of time, assessing the accuracy and impartiality of broadcasters through an analytical framework. Broadly speaking, we have not found evidence of any systemic bias as alleged in the Prescott memo. Nor have we alleged flagrant breaches of broadcast impartiality.

We have, however, identified blind spots where more context, background and explanation would help audiences understand often complex political and social issues.

The Prescott memo that sparked the BBC’s current crisis has not been transparent or robust in design or approach. The analysis itself falls well short of the standards of impartiality it demands.

Stephen Cushion has received funding from the BBC Trust, Ofcom, AHRC, BA and ESRC.

– ref. BBC bias? The Prescott memo falls well short of the standards of impartiality it demands – https://theconversation.com/bbc-bias-the-prescott-memo-falls-well-short-of-the-standards-of-impartiality-it-demands-269576

November 14, 2025

How patients are helping cancer researchers to ask better questions – and find better answers

Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Brown, Associate Professor in Cancer and Cell Biology, University of Limerick

Cancer research is evolving, not just in the lab, but in who is leading it. Increasingly, patients, carers and members of the public are stepping into the research process itself, shaping what questions get asked and how answers are found.

This approach, known as patient and public involvement (PPI), brings people with personal experience of illness from the sidelines to the centre of scientific discovery. It ensures research is grounded in the realities of those it aims to help.

Rather than being passive participants, patients become collaborators. They contribute insights, challenge assumptions and help shape research that matters in the real world. When people affected by cancer are treated as equals in the research process, the result is a more compassionate, inclusive and effective body of evidence, one that improves treatment, care and outcomes for everyone.

Personal experience improves science

When someone with cancer speaks about treatment or research, people listen. They are also trusted advocates who can help make the complex and often overwhelming world of scientific research more accessible, not just for other patients, but for the wider community too.

Patients act as bridges, linking healthcare staff and scientists, clinical practice and community understanding, hard data and human meaning. They challenge researchers to think differently, to ask better questions and to consider the real-world consequences of their work. Patients make science personal, reminding researchers that behind every dataset is a life, a family, a story.

Their involvement also helps demystify science. When patients share what they have learned with friends, families and local networks, they help foster trust and counter misinformation about cancer and its treatments. At a time when false health claims spread fast online, this kind of authentic engagement is invaluable.

And PPI does not just change how research feels, it changes what research finds.

In one clinical trial for a new anti-cancer drug, patients described the treatment as feeling like ice being injected into their veins, painful and distressing. This side-effect had not appeared in early trials or lab studies. Because of patient feedback, researchers were able to adapt the trial protocol, adjusting the dose or delivery method to make the experience less traumatic.

That kind of insight can only come from experience. Without patient voices, research risks missing the mark.

Rethinking the research process

Traditionally, cancer research was designed and led by academics and doctors. Patients provided samples and data, but rarely had a say in what questions were asked, how studies were run or how results were shared.

That is no longer enough. Science must be more collaborative, inclusive and responsive to the people it serves. That is where meaningful PPI comes in.

At the University of Limerick and University Hospital Limerick in Ireland, a new model of PPI is turning this principle into practice. Here, a patient-led steering group oversees all cancer research projects, ensuring every study is relevant, respectful and responsive to the needs of those affected.

Cancer patients join disease-specific panels and are matched with research teams based on shared goals or interests. These teams are made up of scientists, healthcare professionals and patients, working together as equals.

When patients lead, research stays grounded in what really matters: improving care, experience and outcomes.

To support participation in Limerick’s PPI programmes, the group provides accessible resources such as a plain language glossary of scientific and medical terms, continuing mentorship through regular meetings, and PPI training for academics through the independent national PPI Ignite Network.

Patients also help share research findings with their communities through social media, recruitment events and local meetings, bridging the gap between lab and life.

Cancer research is happening in hospitals, universities and research centres across the country. Because every cancer and every person is unique, researchers need a wide range of voices to guide their work.

You do not need a science background, just experience, curiosity and a willingness to share your perspective.

Search online for “patient and public involvement in cancer research” in your local area, or ask your healthcare team about local initiatives. Most researchers include a contact email on their institutional website and are happy to hear from potential collaborators.

Science is strongest when it listens. By bringing together patients, carers, researchers, doctors and the public as equal partners, we can make cancer research not only better, but more human.

James Brown has current funding from the Health Research Institute at the University of Limerick. He is affiliated with the University of Limerick, and is a member of the PPI steering committee.

– ref. How patients are helping cancer researchers to ask better questions – and find better answers – https://theconversation.com/how-patients-are-helping-cancer-researchers-to-ask-better-questions-and-find-better-answers-260640

November 14, 2025

Trespassers and troubadours: what to watch and listen to this week

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anna Walker, Senior Arts + Culture Editor, The Conversation

The winner of this year’s Booker prize, Hungarian-British writer David Szalay, has often been accused of overwriting. His earlier short story collections and novels sometimes lost readers in their ornate, over-detailed descriptions. It seems he’s taken that criticism to heart. After abandoning a novel he had been working on for nearly four years in 2020, Szalay has returned with Flesh – a book that, contrary to its title, strips the story right to the bone.

A short, propulsive read, Flesh took the prize because of its singularity. The judging panel said: “Szalay has a talent for only telling the good parts. This is the story of a man’s life, from his youth to deep into adulthood, and yet there are gaps left in the protagonist’s life that Szalay leaves uncovered. He generously allows the reader to fill them in.”

For our reviewer, Tory Young, who researches 21st-century literature, the novel was “deeply affecting.”

Flesh is available in all bookshops now

Running men and trespassers

The 1987 adaptation of Stephen King’s The Running Man is one of many spandex-filled Arnold Schwarzenegger films my partner has made me watch. As far as Arnie movies go – and I do enjoy the occasional one (True Lies, for instance) – The Running Man is pretty dreadful. So, if not for the involvement of director Edgar Wright, I probably wouldn’t have been tempted to see the new adaptation.

Fortunately, Wright’s signature flair for fast-paced action and lead actor Glenn Powell’s undeniable charisma makes this version a winner. In fact, according to our reviewer, King expert Matt Jacobsen, it’s “the most fun you’ll have at the cinema this year”.

The Running Man is in cinemas now

The trailer for The Running Man.

As well as film recommendations, we like to share books in The Conversation office. The one that’s perhaps been passed around the most is Louise Kennedy’s masterful debut novel, Trespasses. It follows the relationship between Cushla, a young Catholic woman, and Michael, an older married Protestant man during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. No doubt we’ll all be tuning into the excellent new Channel 4 adaptation, starring Tom Cullen and Lola Petticrew.

Romances between Catholics and Protestants are still often controversial in Northern Ireland. Laura Smith, a researcher at the University of Liverpool, regularly interviews Northern Irish women in these mixed-denominational relationships. She found that the show’s themes of forbidden love still ring true for these couples.

Trespasses is available to watch on Channel 4 On Demand

Brilliant women

Apple TV had me at “Emma Thompson” with their new drama Down Cemetery Road. Add Ruth Wilson to the mix, and I’ve been counting down the days to its release. Now that it’s here, it doesn’t disappoint.

Art conservator Sarah (Wilson) and private investigator Zoë (Thompson) uncover evidence that the UK government deliberately maimed its own soldiers during secret chemical weapons testing on the Afghanistan battlefield. The result is thrilling, but also sharp, funny and unexpectedly thoughtful – all set to a brilliant soundtrack featuring Björk, PJ Harvey and Billie Holiday.

Down Cemetery Road is available to watch weekly on Apple TV

The trailer for Down Cemetery Road.

Also playing on my speakers this week is LUX, the stunning new album from Spanish singer-songwriter Rosalía. It’s a remarkable piece of work, with lyrics in 14 different languages, weaving together a tapestry of styles drawn from a rich variety of storytelling traditions and cultures.

If you’re wondering where to start, check out the music video for the lead single, Berghain (which also features Björk). In it, Rosalía goes about everyday tasks – ironing, visiting the doctor – while a full orchestra squeezes into the room, accompanying her haunting, operatic voice.

Our reviewer found that through its exploration of faith and courtly love, LUX evokes the tradition of the Spanish troubadour. No wonder Madonna has called Rosalía a “true visionary.”

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

– ref. Trespassers and troubadours: what to watch and listen to this week – https://theconversation.com/trespassers-and-troubadours-what-to-watch-and-listen-to-this-week-269734

November 14, 2025

The Choral: this moving first world war film reveals the power of music to transcend despair

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura O’Flanagan, PhD Candidate, School of English, Dublin City University

Set in the Oxfordshire village of Ramsden in 1916, The Choral inhabits a world where the war is distant – yet its shadow lies over every street. Many of the young men are gone to the front, their names echoing through the church and village hall. Those left behind hover between waiting and pretending that life continues as before.

The film reunites Alan Bennett’s pen and Nicholas Hytner’s direction for their fourth film together (The Madness of King George, The History Boys, The Lady in the Van). Bennett’s eye for endurance and small absurdities, his distinct blend of humour and heartbreak, lends the story a warmth which threatens but never fully falls into sentimentality.

Determined to keep something of the village’s heart intact, the local choir opens its doors to all. The remaining boys – “fodder for the mill, fodder for the front” – join with nervous energy and untested voices. Around them unfold the small dramas of youth: crushes, jealousies, the thrill of being noticed – all under the dark cloud of war.

At times, the film recalls early Downton Abbey: the lightness of routine belying a deeper unease as the order of things begins to tremble. Hytner’s direction keeps the tone measured, his pacing unhurried, the village life unfolding in laughter across fields, flirtation in the lanes, and the faint hum of something approaching.

Ralph Fiennes, in superb form, is characteristically restrained as Dr Guthrie, the new choirmaster whose time in Germany prompts quiet gossip and complicates his loyalties. Dressed in tweed with a pocket watch gleaming, he brings calm authority tinged with sorrow. Alongside the enemy across the Channel, Guthrie sees the human faces behind the rhetoric of war, and thus he is both insider and outsider.

Beneath his composure runs a conviction that compassion itself has become a form of dissent. When Jacob Dudman’s traumatised soldier laments “life’s fucking shit”, Guthrie replies simply: “So, sing.” It becomes the film’s credo: music as both defiance and survival, a way to hold despair at bay. That spirit finds its fullest expression in Mary (Amara Okereke), whose voice lifts through the air with a brilliance that soars towards the transcendent.

Disappointingly, in a story otherwise so attuned to compassion, the film’s portrayal of women feels thin. The women of Ramsden are treated as narrative currency, their sexuality quietly commodified and offered as recompense for men’s suffering. The Choral would struggle to pass even the most forgiving version of the Bechdel test: the few conversations between women are framed by men’s absence or desire.

The film hints at a worldview in which women and sex are treated as rites of passage, experiences the young men are owed before war denies them adulthood. Yet for all the attentiveness to male sorrow, its compassion remains finely tuned to the loss which binds the village, finding moments of truth despite its blind spots.

While the choir scenes are wonderful and the climactic performance is deeply moving, the film is most affecting in its quietest moments. Jubilant farewells at the railway station are almost immediately shadowed by trains bringing home the wounded. The innocence of departure meets the silence of return, and in between lies everything the village will lose.

When a young woman rejects a soldier newly home, Hytner captures the moment with painful clarity: the war has already cut him off from the life he fought to reclaim. The village photographer (Mark Addy) records the last flicker of innocence, freezing faces that might have stepped from the stanzas of Philip Larkin’s poem MCMXIV “grinning as if it were all / An August Bank Holiday lark” – still radiant with a trust in life that history will soon betray.

The Choral is both elegy and celebration: a reminder that even in the quietest corners, song can sound like survival – the fragile note of hope that refuses to fade.

Laura O’Flanagan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Choral: this moving first world war film reveals the power of music to transcend despair – https://theconversation.com/the-choral-this-moving-first-world-war-film-reveals-the-power-of-music-to-transcend-despair-269771

November 14, 2025

Quand l’IA devient le consommateur

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Sylvie-Eléonore Rolland, Maître de conférences, Université Paris Dauphine – PSL

L’intelligence artificielle (IA) ne se contente plus de guider nos choix : elle anticipe nos besoins et agit à notre place. En orchestrant décisions et transactions, devient-elle une entité consommatrice ? Que devient notre libre arbitre de consommateur face à un marché piloté par les algorithmes ?

Ce texte est publié dans le cadre des Dauphine Digital Days dont The Conversation France est partenaire.

Alors que les modèles classiques de comportement du consommateur reposent sur l’intention, la préférence et le choix, l’automatisation introduite par l’intelligence artificielle (IA) transforme en profondeur la chaîne décisionnelle. En s’immisçant dans les étapes de reconnaissance des besoins, d’évaluation des alternatives et d’achat, l’IA ne se contente plus de guider – elle agit.

Cette mutation questionne le cadre théorique du consumer agency, l’idée selon laquelle les consommateurs ont la capacité d’agir de manière intentionnelle, de faire des choix et d’exercer une influence sur leur propre vie et sur leur environnement. Ce déplacement progressif du pouvoir décisionnel interroge. Il interpelle la nature même de l’acte de consommer.

L’IA peut-elle être considérée comme une actrice de consommation à part entière ? Sommes-nous encore maîtres de nos choix ou sommes-nous devenus les récepteurs d’un système marchand autonome façonné par l’intelligence artificielle ?

Personnalisation de l’expérience

Les algorithmes prédictifs, programmes qui anticipent des résultats futurs à partir de données passées, sont aujourd’hui des acteurs incontournables de l’environnement numérique, présents sur des plateformes, telles que Netflix, Amazon, TikTok ou Spotify. Conçus pour analyser les comportements des utilisateurs, ces systèmes visent à personnaliser l’expérience en proposant des contenus et des produits adaptés aux préférences individuelles. En réduisant le temps de recherche et en améliorant la pertinence des recommandations, ils offrent une promesse d’assistance optimisée.

Toutefois, cette personnalisation soulève une question centrale : ces algorithmes améliorent-ils l’accès aux contenus et aux produits pertinents, ou participent-ils à un enfermement progressif dans des habitudes de consommation préétablies ?

En favorisant les contenus similaires à ceux déjà consultés, les systèmes de recommandation tendent à renforcer les préférences préexistantes des utilisateurs, tout en restreignant la diversité des propositions auxquelles ces derniers sont exposés. Ce phénomène, identifié sous le terme de « bulle de filtre », limite l’ouverture à des perspectives nouvelles et contribue à une uniformisation des expériences de consommation.

L’utilisateur se trouve ainsi progressivement enfermé dans un environnement façonné par ses interactions antérieures, au détriment d’une exploration libre et fortuite, le « faire les boutiques » d’autrefois.

Glissement progressif de l’IA

Ce glissement remet en question l’équilibre entre l’intelligence artificielle en tant qu’outil d’assistance et son potentiel aliénant, dans la mesure où la liberté de choix et l’autonomie décisionnelle constituent des dimensions fondamentales du bien-être psychologique et de la construction identitaire.

Il soulève également des enjeux éthiques majeurs : dans quelle mesure l’expérience de consommation est-elle encore véritablement choisie, lorsqu’elle est orientée, voire imposée, par des algorithmes, souvent à l’insu des consommateurs, notamment ceux dont la littératie numérique demeure limitée ?

Des algorithmes qui deviennent cibles de la publicité

L’optimisation des publicités et des publications en ligne repose de plus en plus sur des critères imposés par les plateformes.

Cette tendance est particulièrement visible sur des plateformes comme YouTube, où les vidéos adoptent systématiquement des codes visuels optimisés : visages expressifs, polices de grande taille, couleurs vives. Ce format ne résulte pas d’une préférence spontanée des internautes, mais découle des choix algorithmiques qui privilégient ces éléments pour maximiser le taux de clics.

De manière similaire, sur les réseaux sociaux, les publications adoptent des structures spécifiques, phrases courtes et anecdotes engageantes, comme sur X, où les utilisateurs condensent leurs messages en formules percutantes pour maximiser les retweets. Cela ne vise pas nécessairement à améliorer l’expérience de lecture, mais répond aux critères de visibilité imposés par l’algorithme de la plateforme.

Ainsi, l’objectif des annonceurs ne se limite plus à séduire un public humain, mais vise principalement à optimiser la diffusion de leurs contenus en fonction des impératifs algorithmiques. Cette dynamique conduit à une homogénéisation des messages publicitaires, où l’innovation et l’authenticité tendent à s’effacer au profit d’une production standardisée répondant aux logiques des algorithmes.

Influence sur les préférences des consommateurs

Ces formats prédominants sont-ils uniquement imposés par les algorithmes, ou reflètent-ils les attentes des consommateurs ? En effet, si les algorithmes sont conçus pour maximiser l’engagement, cela suppose qu’ils s’appuient en partie sur les comportements et les préférences des utilisateurs. Pourtant, la véritable interrogation réside sans doute dans la manière dont les algorithmes influencent, par des expositions répétées, nos propres préférences, jusqu’à redéfinir ce que nous percevons comme attractif ou pertinent.

L’évolution de l’intelligence artificielle a donné naissance aux systèmes d’achat autonomes, qui prennent des décisions d’achat en toute indépendance. Ces systèmes reposent sur deux types d’agents intelligents : les agents verticaux et les agents horizontaux.

Les agents verticaux sont des IA spécialisées dans des domaines précis. Ils optimisent la gestion des achats en analysant des besoins spécifiques. Par exemple, les réfrigérateurs « intelligents » scannent leur contenu, identifient les produits manquants et passent commande automatiquement avant même que les consommateurs ne décident eux-mêmes de passer commande.

Les agents horizontaux coordonnent quant à eux plusieurs domaines d’achat. Des assistants, comme Alexa et Google Assistant, analysent les besoins en alimentation, mobilité et divertissement pour proposer une consommation intégrée et cohérente. L’interaction multi-agents permet ainsi d’accroître l’autonomie des systèmes d’achat.

Les agents verticaux assurent la précision et l’optimisation des achats, tandis que les agents horizontaux garantissent la cohérence des décisions à l’échelle globale. Cette synergie préfigure un avenir où la consommation devient totalement ou partiellement automatisée et prédictive. Progressivement, nous ne décidons plus quand acheter ni même quoi acheter : ces systèmes autonomes agissent pour nous, que ce soit pour notre bien ou à notre détriment !

Arte, 2024.

Qui est le principal agent de décision ?

L’accès à l’information et l’instantanéité offertes par l’IA aurait fait de nous des consommateurs « augmentés ». Pourtant, son évolution rapide soulève désormais une question fondamentale : sommes-nous encore les véritables décideurs de notre consommation, ou sommes-nous progressivement relégués à un rôle passif ? L’IA ne se limite plus à nous assister ; elle structure désormais un écosystème au sein duquel nos décisions tendent à être préprogrammées par des algorithmes, dans une logique d’optimisation.

Une telle dynamique soulève des interrogations profondes quant à l’avenir des modes de consommation : l’IA est-elle en passe de devenir le véritable consommateur, tandis que l’humain se limiterait à suivre un flux prédéfini ? Assistons-nous à l’émergence d’un marché où les interactions entre intelligences artificielles supplantent celles entre individus ?

L’avenir du libre arbitre

Si ces technologies offrent un confort indéniable, elles posent également la question du devenir de notre libre arbitre et de notre autonomie en tant que consommateurs, citoyens et humains. Dès lors, ne sommes-nous pas à l’aube d’une révolution où l’humain, consommateur passif, s’efface au profit d’une économie pilotée par des systèmes de consommation intelligents autonomes ?

Plus qu’une volonté de contrôle total des technologies qui freine l’innovation, c’est peut-être notre propre autonomie qu’il convient de repenser à l’aune de l’émergence de ces systèmes. Il s’agit alors de construire, selon la perspective des « technologies de soi » de Michel Foucault, des pratiques par lesquelles l’individu œuvre à sa propre transformation et à son émancipation des diverses formes de domination algorithmique.

Sylvie-Eléonore Rolland ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Quand l’IA devient le consommateur – https://theconversation.com/quand-lia-devient-le-consommateur-269765

November 14, 2025

Why the UK should think twice before copying Denmark’s asylum policies

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Pace, Professor in Global Studies at Roskilde University, Roskilde University

When the British government recently announced its plan to emulate Denmark’s asylum and immigration system, it framed the move as a way to restore fairness and regain control. But for those who know how Denmark’s system actually works, the move raises serious ethical — and practical — questions.

This is not the first time the UK and Denmark have looked to each other for ideas on tough migration policies. In 2022, both considered schemes to send asylum seekers to Rwanda and for claims to be processed there.

In the end, neither country went ahead. Denmark paused its proposals and the UK’s scheme was blocked by the courts and then ditched after a change of government.

Denmark once prided itself on its liberal welfare state and human rights commitments. But it has spent the past decade turning itself into one of Europe’s toughest destinations for refugees.

Indeed, it is the only country in Europe to have revoked refugee protection on a large scale. And the first to reorient its laws away from integration and towards return.

I have spent years studying Denmark’s migration system and interviewing the refugees affected by it. My forthcoming book, Un-welcome to Denmark, traces the laws governing entry, residence and expulsion in Denmark’s Aliens Act, which has been amended more than 100 times over 36 years (1983–2019).

For context, that pace of change is unusually high, making Denmark’s immigration system one of the most frequently revised in Europe. And this has created near constant uncertainty for those living under it.

A tougher system

The turning point for Denmark’s asylum system came in 2015, when a change to the Aliens Act allowed authorities to revoke refugee status if conditions in someone’s home country had improved — even when those improvements were fragile or unpredictable.

Between 2017 and 2018, roughly 900 Somali refugees lost their residence permits. Then in 2019, just as the Social Democrats returned to power under Mette Frederiksen, parliament approved a package of legislation that has widely been described as a “paradigm shift” in Denmark’s asylum policy.

Under this tougher system, Syrian refugees who held temporary protection had their permits reassessed. In 2022 alone, nearly 400 Syrians left Denmark, fearing they would lose their refugee status and sought protection elsewhere in Europe.

Residencies were revoked, but refugees could not be deported, because Denmark had no diplomatic relations with the then Assad government. So people were placed in so called “departure centres” — facilities designed to house people expected to leave the country (and under stricter conditions than standard refugee shelters).

Some of the Syrians I spoke with, who were detained at these centres, described the experience as extremely unpleasant — a non-life — seemingly designed to push them to leave voluntarily.

A life in limbo

Denmark has become a pioneer in restrictive immigration policies. And this has come with serious legal, ethical and moral challenges.

The European Court of Human Rights has, for example, previously found that Denmark violated the right to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights due to a three-year waiting period for refugees with temporary protection.

Last year, the European Court of Justice accused Denmark of racial discrimination for planned mass housing evictions in previously so called “ghetto” neighbourhoods (now referred to as parallel societies, where a high proportion of residents are migrants.

Refugees I’ve spoken with have told me how they often feel that integration is pointless if they might still be deported. Social isolation and limited rights for asylum seekers are the norm. Families face long waiting times for reunification despite few cases and refugees face temporary permits that hinder long-term planning.

The system is clearly designed to discourage settlement through restrictive living conditions and a lack of control over daily life, which creates a huge amount of stress and fear for those living under such rules.

Harsh and destabilising

Denmark’s asylum system shows how far a (supposedly) centre-left government can go in tightening migration policies while maintaining political support. The Social Democrats inherited a strict framework and have continued to apply it, including temporary protection, reassessment of refugee status and the use of departure centres.

For the UK, which is now considering adopting similar policies, the Danish experience offers cautionary lessons. These measures may reduce asylum numbers, but they come at a human and legal cost. Families are left in uncertainty, long-term planning is impossible and life in departure centres can be harsh and destabilising.

Any government looking to copy this approach should look beyond the statistics and consider the real experiences of the people affected. Denmark’s story is a reminder that migration policy is not just about managing numbers — it is also about the lives that are shaped by those policies.

This article was commissioned by Videnskab.dk as part of a partnership collaboration with The Conversation. You can read the Danish version of this article, here.

Michelle Pace received funding from the Carlsberg Foundation for her forthcoming monograph entitled Un-welcome to Denmark. The Paradigm Shift and Refugee Integration (MUP, December 2025). (Details here: https://www.carlsbergfondet.dk/en/what-we-have-funded/cf21-0519/). She is also an Associate Fellow, Europe Program, at Chatham House.

– ref. Why the UK should think twice before copying Denmark’s asylum policies – https://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-should-think-twice-before-copying-denmarks-asylum-policies-269660