As the European parliament was debating a new framework for EU return policy, researchers were invited into the conversation. The proposal under discussion included longer detention periods for migrants that do not comply with a return decision, immediate deportation without a prior voluntary phase and the establishment of so-called "return hubs" in third countries.
In this setting, Arjen Leerkes - principal investigator and coordinator of the FAiR project – recently participated in a panel discussion at the European Parliament where he presented some of the project’s results to fellow researchers, NGOs and parliament members. He was not there to advocate a particular strategy, but to introduce realism and a comprehensive understanding into a highly charged debate. 'As scientists', he said, 'we try to remain independent and talk about different options, even if we don't necessarily like them personally. That's our responsibility.' How does academic research enter such political arenas? In this case, it began with FAiR.
The project behind the seat: What is FAiR?
FAiR – Finding Agreement in Return – is a Horizon Europe research project running from May 2023 to October 2026. It examines the effectiveness and legitimacy of the EU’s current return governance system and explores alternative policy approaches to return. Its ambition is to help reduce the gap between stated policy objectives and policy outcomes.
In 2024, only 20% of people who received a return order to their countries of origin returned. Cooperation from countries of origin is limited, and migrants themselves may resist return. At the same time, policy debates focus heavily on enforcement, while alternatives receive far less attention. As a result, large numbers of people remain in prolonged legal limbo — unable to return, yet without the right to stay.
FAiR addresses this challenge by shifting the focus from coercion to legitimacy, and examines the conditions under which cooperation on return becomes legitimate, sustainable and effective. Furthermore, it analyses the advantages and disadvantages of different policy options, such as regularisation, when return is difficult for governments to implement.
'It’s important that we also engage in pure science, people just following their curiosity. That's the core of science.'
Arjen Leerkes
Professor of Sociology
Designing for impact: built-in societal engagement
From the outset, FAiR has been designed not only to analyse policy, but to engage with those shaping it. Arjen's participation in the panel in Brussels highlights this effort. But for Arjen, engagement begins long before a parliamentary invitation.
'Impact in research can go in various ways and always needs to be based on scientific expertise', he says. 'It’s important that we also engage in pure science, people just following their curiosity. That's the core of science. If we don't have good theories and good methodologies, who are we?' At the same time, he argues, it is good that Erasmus University Rotterdam provides space for those who wish to engage societally. 'If we merely publish academically, it will be tough to make impactful research. Societal engagement takes time'.
FAiR engages with policymakers and works with NGOs such as PICUM (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants). “I would never only work with powerful actors,” Arjen explains. “I want to connect grassroots non-governmental organizations and powerful governmental partners.” In that sense, FAiR embodies Erasmus University Rotterdam’s commitment to societally impactful research as a practice by encouraging collaboration between various levels of stakeholders.
Insights from Brussels
So, how does impact look like once politics enters the room? In the panel, Arjen presented preliminary findings on public attitudes toward return policies and alternatives in 13 European countries. The results paint a nuanced, and politically sensitive picture. 'Public opinion is currently quite restrictive,' he acknowledged. 'There is no longer a majority that thinks that people should be given the right to organise their own departure first before they risk being deported. There is also no support for large-scale amnesties.'
But for Arjen, what policymakers do with those insights is more important. 'Of course, policymakers need to pay attention to public opinion. It’s democracy,' he said. 'But it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to copy-paste what people think. There are also other interests, both for human rights and for effectiveness, which depend on multiple parties.' The challenge, then, is to find "agreement in return", to find the right balance between the interests of those parties. 'And policy makers have the responsibility to explain to their citizens why it is important to strike the right balance', adds Arjen.
The aftermath
What can we learn about impactful research? Arjen highlights that impact is not immediate or linear. It requires resisting what he calls the "expectation trap" — raising hopes that policy cannot realistically meet. 'It’s quite unlikely that you bring in results and immediately political parties say, "Why didn’t we think of this earlier?"' he reflects. Influence often happens quietly: it unfolds through informal conversations, education, and civic engagement.
But how do you prevent policymakers from cherry-picking? 'That is very hard,' Arjen admits. 'As researchers, we often try to be "honest brokers", to give attention to different policy options and broaden the scope. Our research needs to be organised in such ways that we are sufficiently independent. Then we can explain what the advantages and disadvantages are of picking certain cherries."
Returning from Brussels, the takeaway is neither triumph nor frustration. It is a reminder that impactful research does not eliminate political complexity — it makes it visible. In that sense, FAiR’s contribution lies not in prescribing policy, but in broadening the terms of the debate.
Stricter legislation has been passed
In the current reality where recent EU developments point towards a stricter return policy, FAiR’s findings are more relevant than ever. As Arjen explains, 'unfortunately, the new Return Regulation includes several measures that diverge from our research findings and recommendations. For example, it allows deportations to so-called "return hubs" in third countries and extends the maximum duration of immigration detention to 24 months.
These choices reflect a political imperative to demonstrate control over unwanted migration. While that may be effective in the short term, it risks undermining effectiveness and legitimacy of migration governance in the longer run. Our task as scientists is to keep bringing robust evidence into the debate and support more informed policymaking.
- Researcher
- More information
More science stories? Have a look at our online magazine Erasmus Extra.
- Related content
