Research undertaken by the Principal Investigator has established that limitations in welfare and psychosocial support can have long term social and emotional implications for women survivors of conflict and persecution, as well as their families, dependents and communities more broadly. Recent upsurges in claims for asylum in Europe, and the increasing need for sustained action from Northern European states, thus places the wellbeing of refugee women as a central concern in this region. This study examines social conditions and support for women seeking asylum in three varying case study politico-economies, namely liberal/neoliberal (Britain), liberal (Denmark) and social democratic (Sweden). It aims to investigate state and organisational responses in these three Northern European states to a) understand socially harmful policy and practice in asylum systems from a gendered perspective and b) develop strategies and recommendations so that such conditions can be mitigated, support improved upon and knowledge shared. Drawing together an intersectional feminist perspective with a social harm framework, this project will address gaps in recognising the micro-level impacts of structural political decisions affecting women seeking asylum. Building on her extensive experience of researching asylum, and utilising connections with governmental and non-governmental organisations in this field, the PI is the ideal candidate to develop research evidence to shape and inform policy and recommendations for best practice in responding to, and supporting, women seeking asylum. Since Hillyard and Tombs first outlined a social harm perspective in 2004, social harm remains empirically, methodologically and theoretically under-developed, particularly in terms of understanding women's experiences of harm. Pemberton (2015) extends the perspective via cross-national quantitative analyses of harm within a politico-economic framework, identifying liberal and neoliberal states as those within which harm is most manifest. However, there remain significant gaps in investigating and understanding the scale, nature and distribution of social harm, not least in terms of the gendered impacts of factors which have can result in physical, psychological, cultural, economic and social harms against women. Although Pemberton's quantitative analysis has drawn social harm research further into the empirical sphere of social sciences, the everyday impacts of structural and political decisions have not yet been explored. An intersectional feminist perspective, which recognises that multiple identities in women's lives can mean multiple oppressions, allows for a timely and nuanced way of examining and addressing the continuum of harms that women seeking asylum can face. This research thus aims to: 1. Address the current shortfalls and gaps in knowledge by expanding empirically generated data pertaining to the micro-level socially harmful impacts resulting from gendered asylum policy with specific reference to physical/mental harms, autonomy harms and relational harms; 2. Situate the experiences of women seeking asylum in the context of nation-specific historical trajectories, and consider ways in which three asylum systems (Britain, Denmark and Sweden) alleviate or exacerbate physical/mental, relational and autonomy harms; 3. Identify what forms of support are available to women seeking asylum, and address ways in which best practice and policy can be disaggregated; 4. Develop policy recommendations for governmental and non-governmental organisations working with women seeking asylum; 5. Create the basis for a novel, sustainable, and long term research agenda around such issues. Three methodologies will be employed: critical analysis of policies and legislation; 15-20 semi-structured practitioner interviews per country with relevant governmental and non-governmental representatives; approximately 3-5 oral histories with women seeking asylum.Research undertaken by the Principal Investigator has established that limitations in welfare and psychosocial support can have long term social and emotional implications for women survivors of conflict and persecution, as well as their families, dependents and communities more broadly. Recent upsurges in claims for asylum in Europe, and the increasing need for sustained action from Northern European states, thus places the wellbeing of refugee women as a central concern in this region. This study examines social conditions and support for women seeking asylum in three varying case study politico-economies, namely liberal/neoliberal (Britain), liberal (Denmark) and social democratic (Sweden). It aims to investigate state and organisational responses in these three Northern European states to a) understand socially harmful policy and practice in asylum systems from a gendered perspective and b) develop strategies and recommendations so that such conditions can be mitigated, support improved upon and knowledge shared. Drawing together an intersectional feminist perspective with a social harm framework, this project will address gaps in recognising the micro-level impacts of structural political decisions affecting women seeking asylum. Building on her extensive experience of researching asylum, and utilising connections with governmental and non-governmental organisations in this field, the PI is the ideal candidate to develop research evidence to shape and inform policy and recommendations for best practice in responding to, and supporting, women seeking asylum. Since Hillyard and Tombs first outlined a social harm perspective in 2004, social harm remains empirically, methodologically and theoretically under-developed, particularly in terms of understanding women's experiences of harm. Pemberton (2015) extends the perspective via cross-national quantitative analyses of harm within a politico-economic framework, identifying liberal and neoliberal states as those within which harm is most manifest. However, there remain significant gaps in investigating and understanding the scale, nature and distribution of social harm, not least in terms of the gendered impacts of factors which have can result in physical, psychological, cultural, economic and social harms against women. Although Pemberton's quantitative analysis has drawn social harm research further into the empirical sphere of social sciences, the everyday impacts of structural and political decisions have not yet been explored. An intersectional feminist perspective, which recognises that multiple identities in women's lives can mean multiple oppressions, allows for a timely and nuanced way of examining and addressing the continuum of harms that women seeking asylum can face. This research thus aims to: 1. Address the current shortfalls and gaps in knowledge by expanding empirically generated data pertaining to the micro-level socially harmful impacts resulting from gendered asylum policy with specific reference to physical/mental harms, autonomy harms and relational harms; 2. Situate the experiences of women seeking asylum in the context of nation-specific historical trajectories, and consider ways in which three asylum systems (Britain, Denmark and Sweden) alleviate or exacerbate physical/mental, relational and autonomy harms; 3. Identify what forms of support are available to women seeking asylum, and address ways in which best practice and policy can be disaggregated; 4. Develop policy recommendations for governmental and non-governmental organisations working with women seeking asylum; 5. Create the basis for a novel, sustainable, and long term research agenda around such issues. Three methodologies will be employed: critical analysis of policies and legislation; 15-20 semi-structured practitioner interviews per country with relevant governmental and non-governmental representatives; approximately 3-5 oral histories with women seeking asylum.

74 qualitative interviews and 6 oral histories were carried out. In total, the activist participation and observation took approximately 500 hours. This research has been organised around a case study approach, focusing on three North-ern European countries with varying – rapidly changing – approaches to immigration. As Flyvbjerg (2006) argues, case studies facilitate generalisability of social issues whilst al-lowing for the value of in-depth analysis in specific localised areas. This project adopted case study analyses in these countries for three reasons: firstly, to draw in a qualitative intersectional approach in looking to the micro impacts of meso and macro structures and political decisions; secondly, to allow for in-depth policy analysis and consideration of each socio-political context of the countries included – all with varying dominant so-cio-economic structures; thirdly, to gain insight into best practice so that it might be shared across the countries and broader regions. The study incorporated 74 in-depth semi-structured interviews with psychologists, support workers, detention custody officers, lawyers, advocacy workers and other such social actors working with people seeking asylum in the three case study countries (Britain: n23; Denmark, n: 21; Sweden: n30 ). Participants were recruited through purposive sampling initially directed at relevant institutions and organisations working with people seeking asylum in state and NGO capacities, and snow-ball sampling within organisations once some contacts had been established. This has been supplemented with over 500 of ethnographic activist research with women seeking asylum during this period, as well as in-depth oral histories with six women seeking asylum. Interview responses were coded using NVivo 8 and analysed from an interpretive perspective (Mason, 2002), read literally first and then deconstructed in relation to wider literature and the socio-structural and political context from which they responded. It is important to note, however, that themes were also informed by the longer-term participation with practitioners, activists and women seeking asylum, through which I was enabled to focus on aspects of the process which can otherwise be invisibilised or determined as a ‘by-product’ of asylum systems.