African universities that had previously been confined to a data-collection role are increasingly asserting themselves as key players in the governance of migration. Professor Doudou Dièye Guèye, a sociologist and lecturer-researcher at Assane Seck University in Ziguinchor, recommends that greater emphasis be placed on scientific expertise in the development of public policies. In this interview, he discusses the challenges facing African research and calls for stronger connections between universities, decision-makers and international partners in order to build a migration governance system that is more informed by realities on the ground.
How do you define migration governance, and how can this concept be differentiated from a simple migration policy?
Migration policy refers to the full range of legal and administrative measures that a government puts in place to regulate the entry, exit and residence of individuals within its territory. This covers laws, decrees, bilateral agreements and border control mechanisms. Migration governance is a much broader concept. It is not solely limited to national governments’ actions, but involves a variety of stakeholders working at various levels: local authorities, diaspora organisations, the private sector, international organisations, civil society organisations, as well as technical and financial partners. In my opinion, migration governance describes all the coordination mechanisms between these different stakeholders aimed at defining and implementing migration policies and practices. This governance plays out at various levels: local, national, regional, sub-regional and international. It is precisely this collaborative and multi-level approach that distinguishes it from mere migration policy.
What role have African universities in general and Senegalese universities in particular historically played in the production of knowledge on migration?
For a long time, the production of knowledge on migration was primarily driven from outside the African continent. European and North American research centres, as well as major international organisations, set the research agenda and provided the funding. African institutions therefore played a largely technical role. They were often consulted to collect field data or assist with surveys, without truly influencing the definition of scientific directions. This situation could be partly attributed to a reliance on international funding, as research requires significant resources that are primarily available to institutions in the North. Senegalese universities have nevertheless developed their own scientific approaches. They have established a framework for the sociological and anthropological analysis of migration, drawing on the work of Senegalese researchers, but also on key figures such as Abdelmalek Sayad, whose analyses of immigration as a social phenomenon continue to influence current research. Today, regional universities are also contributing to this momentum, gradually expanding the scope of African academic output on migration issues.
In practical terms, how does the academic community influence, or how should it influence, public policy-making on migration in Senegal?
The purpose of the research community is, by its very nature, to inform public policy. Researchers generate scientific knowledge based on sound methodology and fieldwork, which provides a better understanding of the realities of migration. In contrast to political action, however, research is a long-term undertaking. Results are not immediate as they require a scientific process, validation and publication before they can be incorporated into public debate. Once this work is finished, its findings can provide valuable resources for the relevant government departments, particularly those in charge of the Interior, Foreign Affairs or Senegalese nationals abroad. Provided, of course, that these institutions truly embrace the research findings and mainstream them into their decision-making processes.
Would you agree that Senegalese academic research is being sufficiently utilised by the Government in the formulation of migration policies?
I would say neither that it is completely ignored, nor that it is fully utilized. The answer lies somewhere in between. There are instances where academics are brought in for consultation, particularly during workshops, conferences, or working groups. Yet these initiatives remain fragmented and lacking. In many cases, researchers only find out about meetings or conferences on migration through the media, without even being brought in to contribute to the discussions beforehand. As a result, events addressing migration issues are sometimes held without the participation of specialists from Senegalese universities. Academic research is therefore recognised, but it is not yet sufficiently mainstreamed into the mechanisms for shaping public policy.
In your view, what are the main challenges preventing better coordination between academic research and public policy on migration?
There are several types of obstacles. The first is an institutional one. As far as I am aware, there is no formal, long-term mechanism in Senegal designed to bridge the gap between universities and the government departments in charge of migration issues. Collaborations are generally built on the basis of personal relationships or within the framework of projects funded by international partners. There is no permanent framework for consultation. The second obstacle is financially related. Research on migration still relies heavily on international funding.
It is primarily international organisations that fund research through their branches in Senegal. A large proportion of the resources allocated in this way is used first and foremost to support the daily running of these very branches including fieldwork, travel, data collection and administrative tasks. This level of dependence inevitably restricts our scientific autonomy. Finally, there is also a political hurdle, migration being a particularly sensitive issue from a diplomatic perspective, especially in terms of relations between Senegal and European countries. Political decisions are often driven by short-term priorities, whereas scientific research tends to operate within a much longer timeframe. This gap sometimes makes it difficult to incorporate research findings into public policy.
Senegal has become a country of departure, transit, destination and, increasingly, of return for migrants. How does this reality affect the work of researchers and policymakers?
This scenario further complicates the analysis. Senegal continues to be a country of departure, particularly for those bound for Europe, with a strong focus on irregular migration. However, it is also a transit point for regional migration, facilitated by free movement agreements within ECOWAS and by bilateral agreements. At the same time, the country is increasingly emerging as a destination for many migrants from West Africa and the Sahel. This shift is prompting the authorities to consider not only control policies, but also policies on the reception, integration and protection of migrants. Another dimension has now been added to this namely the issue of return migration. A growing number of Senegalese are returning home, either voluntarily or as part of repatriation programmes. This new reality calls for further study, as it raises numerous economic, social and psychological issues. For researchers, this means it is no longer possible to study the various forms of mobility in isolation. Migration must be analysed as a whole, linking the different stages of departure, transit, settlement and return. Gender-related differences must also be taken into consideration. Migration trajectories do not have the same effects depending on whether the migrant is a man or a woman. For example, the conditions of return and reintegration for a female migrant – particularly in cases where she has suffered violence or crossed the desert – are not comparable to those of a man returning after economic migration. We must take these dimensions fully into account in our research.
How do you view the way in which irregular migration to Europe – particularly journeys by wooden boat – is addressed in public debate, compared with what scientific research reveals?
In my view, research offers a much more nuanced perspective than public debate. African migration is, first and foremost, intra-African movement. For a long time, the main destinations for Senegalese migrants were on the African continent. However, several political, economic and security crises have increasingly compromised these host regions. Furthermore, there have been growing restrictions on obtaining visas for European countries. The result of these combined factors has been a rise in irregular migration to Europe, particularly by sea. Yet public debate very often focuses on security and humanitarian aspects: interceptions at sea, shipwrecks or the fight against people-smugglers. These aspects are obviously crucial, but they do not provide a complete picture of the phenomenon. Our research shows that a migration plan is almost never the result of a purely individual decision. Very often, the whole family is involved in its planning. Family members pool the necessary resources, sometimes selling their belongings or contributing their savings to fund the journey. The trip is generally seen as a collective investment aimed at improving the living conditions of the whole family in the long run. This social and family component is often overlooked in public discourse. Moreover, the issue of return must not be overlooked. Migrants who are repatriated frequently experience significant reintegration difficulties. In some families or communities, the failure of the migration project is perceived as a form of social decline. Some migrants even say they feel more undervalued than those who have managed to leave or settle abroad. These realities show that migration cannot be boiled down to a mere question of security. It is also deeply linked to social expectations, family solidarity and notions of achievement.
Do partnerships with the European Union – in particular return agreements and funding for migration projects – leave room for genuine local academic expertise, or do they prioritize imported expertise?
In my experience, local academic expertise continues to be largely overlooked. When experts are called upon, it is often in a subcontracting role rather than as genuine scientific partners. Most major projects funded under migration cooperation between Senegal and the European Union are managed by international consultancy firms, European agencies or international organisations. Senegalese researchers are mainly used for collecting field data or providing ad hoc expertise, without really contributing to defining the scientific or strategic direction of the projects. In my view, this approach poses a real challenge. European funding generally channels through European organisations or NGOs before reaching African countries. A great deal of the resources is therefore spent on ensuring the functioning of these intermediary bodies. I often ask myself: why can’t this funding be allocated directly to African universities? Doing so would not only improve the effectiveness of the projects but also sustainably enhance the research capacities of local institutions. Ultimately, this funding structure restricts the ability of Senegalese universities to exert any real influence on migration policies and research priorities.
Do you work with foreign research institutes or universities on migration issues? Do these collaborations affect the way you work?
Yes, I routinely collaborate with several international universities and research networks. These joint efforts are particularly productive. They present opportunities to compare approaches, share methodologies and benefit from complementary perspectives on migration phenomena. Nevertheless, the broad outlines of projects are often defined according to the concerns of the organisations that fund them. Once a research protocol has been agreed, researchers must comply with it. Meanwhile, I continue my own research, which focuses primarily on the realities in Senegal. It is the issues observed on the ground that guide my personal work. In other words, I try to offer a local perspective on migration dynamics, which sometimes differs from the concerns expressed in major international programmes.
How do you perceive the role of international organisations such as IOM, UNHCR (United Nations Refugee Agency) or specialist think tanks? Do they complement the work of universities or do they compete with it?
I think we need to adopt a measured approach. On the one hand, agencies such as the IOM and UNHCR play a vital role. They have substantial financial and logistical resources that enable them to produce data on a large scale and fund a wide range of studies to which universities often do not have access. On the other hand, their work responds primarily to operational needs. They produce knowledge intended to support the implementation of programmes, provide guidance for interventions or respond to institutional requests. Academic research, for its part, pursues a different goal. It seeks to understand phenomena in all their complexity, to produce in-depth analyses and to nourish scientific debate. These two approaches are therefore not inconsistent, but they serve distinct purposes. Ideally, they should be more complementary.
If you were to make a specific recommendation to the Senegalese authorities on how to better integrate academic research into migration governance, what would it be?
Creating a permanent institutional mechanism to bridge the gap between researchers and policy-makers would be my number one recommendation. Senegal already has skilled researchers and a wealth of scientific data. However, there is a lack of a sustainable framework to mobilise this expertise for the benefit of public policy. I am thinking in particular of the establishment of a National Migration Observatory, with its funding and working in close collaboration with universities. Such a structure would enable data to be centralised, research to be coordinated, continuous monitoring of migration trends to be carried out, and public decision-making to be informed. While there are currently many initiatives in place, they often suffer from a lack of coordination and are dependent on external funding. A permanent national institution would significantly strengthen the generation of knowledge and its application by decision-makers.
In your view, what should be the key priorities for research on migration in Senegal and across Africa over the next five to ten years?
In my view, several areas are worthy of particular attention. The first is related to involuntary immobility. We focus a great deal on people who migrate, but far less on those who wish to leave but lack the means to do so. Yet this situation also has significant social impacts. Some young people, finding themselves unable to migrate, end up giving up on their plans, which has repercussions on their entry into the labour market, their outlook on the future and even their participation in society. Another priority would be to study what might be called the tipping points in migration trajectories. In other words, identifying the moment when a person finally decides to leave, to return or, conversely, to abandon the idea of migration altogether. My research on displaced populations in Casamance provides some insight into this issue. Some people who had fled violence found themselves grappling with particularly harsh living conditions in their host towns. Faced with such precarious circumstances, they chose to return to their villages despite the risks associated with the conflict. Understanding these decision-making mechanisms is a key challenge for future research. Finally, I believe it is vital to further develop research on return migration, the reintegration of migrants, the effects of climate change on mobility, and gender inequalities in migration trajectories. These issues will be at the heart of migration challenges in the coming years and merit further exploration by African researchers.
