How did you come to study data practices related to refugees?

My academic and professional path has always been driven by a deep interest in the logic that governs forced displacement. After completing a BA in Philosophy, I pursued an MSc in Refugee and Forced Migration Studies at Oxford in 2015 — at the height of what was then widely referred to as the “refugee crisis” in Europe.

Shortly after, I worked at UNHCR’s London office during the negotiations of the 2016 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and the early drafting of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR). The GCR attempted to balance states’ concerns about border control with the rights of asylum seekers, while also introducing an economic logic to refugee protection — emphasising self-reliance and socio-economic inclusion. This shift sparked my curiosity about how economic expertise was beginning to shape displacement governance.

Between 2016 and 2019, I held various research and consultancy roles. A research grant allowed me to explore how the European Union was implementing the GCR both within and beyond its borders, against a backdrop of increasingly restrictive asylum policies among Member States. This helped me reflect more concretely on the geopolitical and operational consequences of the evolution of refugee policies.

When I began my PhD in 2019 at the Geneva Graduate Institute, I was particularly interested in how socio-economic metrics were shaping the future of refugee governance. To deepen my understanding, I took courses in development economics to learn more about the use of statistics in policymaking. At the same time, through coursework in International Relations and exposure to feminist and qualitative research, I began to question the presumed neutrality of data. In the end, I came to see statistics as a powerful and useful tool — but one that is never just technical. It always reflects choices about who counts, what matters, and what remains invisible.

This led me to ask: How do data practices that measure success in terms of socio-economic integration shape the governance of displacement? What is made visible — and what is left out? What are the consequences? 

To explore this, I examined how different communities of experts, including economists and humanitarian actors, construct and use refugee data. I focused on contexts where the GCR’s economic approach had been operationalised. Jordan became a key case study, due to the Jordan Compact and its linkages with the GCR, particularly for the emphasis on the socio-economic integration of refugees as a central objective.

In early 2020, I began collaborating with an NGO in Amman implementing programmes for refugees, where I supported donor proposals and helped design monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks. This work revealed how what “counted” in data practices was increasingly shaped by donor priorities that emphasised market-based definitions of success — such as the number of jobs created or the level of entrepreneurship fostered. Metrics like employment rates and business profits were foregrounded, while other dimensions of refugee experience such as care work or social cohesion were often overlooked or rendered invisible.

However, through site visits and conversations with those implementing the programmes, it became clear that the most meaningful impacts of programmes often fell outside standard monitoring frameworks. What mattered on the ground — trust, care, and human connection between refugees and host communities — was rarely captured by conventional indicators.

What was your methodology?

I conducted a qualitative study using interviews, document analysis, and participant observation. I spoke with UNHCR staff, World Bank experts, government officials, and NGO practitioners to understand how data was collected, interpreted, and translated into policy. I also analysed policy documents, donor reports, and programme evaluations to trace how the economic logic based on socio-economic integration influenced decision-making. My fieldwork in Jordan included two research visits — one for six weeks and another for six months — and I also conducted extensive online interviews during the Covid-19 pandemic, reaching out to practitioners via LinkedIn.

Can you tell us about your findings and their implications?

My research uncovered important frictions between two realities: what truly matters on the ground for refugees and host communities — and what gets prioritised and counted within the dominant governance logic focused on socio-economic integration. While employment and other measurable economic outcomes tend to shape policies and monitoring frameworks, many crucial aspects such as informal labour, care work, trust, and empathy often remain invisible and uncounted.

A connected key finding is that the broader ecosystem of organisations implementing refugee programmes is increasingly influenced by a market logic driven by competition. This creates strong incentives to prioritise only positive stories of success aligned with the dominant logic of the GCR, leaving little genuine space to reflect on mistakes, challenges, or other valuable elements that make a programme worthwhile. Success is narrowly defined by creating remunerative work, limiting honest assessments and overlooking initiatives that are vital to people living these realities.

These frictions are not simply points of tension or resistance. Rather, they create valuable opportunities to rethink and evolve data practices. They open space for alternative approaches that bridge the gap between the lived realities of those implementing and benefiting from programmes, and the governance frameworks shaped by geopolitical and donor priorities.

This dynamic interaction encourages the development of tools and measurement practices more responsive to the diverse needs and priorities of both local communities and broader governance structures. In doing so, it points toward a more inclusive and meaningful way to understand and support refugee protection and integration.

Do you think that your findings can help to improve policies regarding refugees?

Yes, definitely. My research reveals a fundamental tension between what is officially counted and prioritised in refugee governance — often driven by socio-economic integration metrics — and what actually matters on the ground to refugees and host communities. This tension shapes not only what gets measured but also what is ultimately implemented in programmes. In practice, what materialises — the reality experienced by people — is always a compromise negotiated within this tension.

Understanding this dynamic is crucial. To improve policies and programme design, we need to look beyond just what is counted and measured, and critically examine how decisions are made about what counts, and what gets left out. Only by recognising these frictions can governance frameworks and data practices evolve to include the full range of meaningful outcomes, from economic indicators to less tangible but equally vital aspects like trust, social connections, and empowerment.

This need is especially urgent in today’s shifting geopolitical context, where funding is becoming more competitive and efficiency-driven. Programmes must not only demonstrate measurable results but also genuinely respond to the lived realities of displaced people. Ensuring that these realities shape what counts will help direct resources where they are most needed and effective.

Furthermore, emerging technologies such as AI offer exciting opportunities to handle vast data sets and integrate qualitative insights into monitoring frameworks. However, to truly benefit from these innovations, we must design tools that acknowledge and bridge the tensions on the ground — tools that reflect diverse experiences and serve refugees better by capturing the complexity of their lives.

In short, improving refugee policies requires embracing the tensions between data, governance, and lived realities — and using these insights to create more inclusive, accountable, and effective approaches to refugee protection and integration.

*     *     *

Augusta Nannerini (second from the left) defended her PhD thesis in International Relations/Political Science, then titled “Data Practices ‘before’ and ‘after’ the Global Compact on Refugees”, on 3 September 2024. Professor Keith Krause (left) presided over the committee, which included Professor Elisabeth Prügl (right), Thesis Supervisor, and, as External Reader, Associate Professor Pamina Firchow, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Massachusetts, USA.

Citation of the PhD thesis: 
Nannerini, Augusta. “Measurements that Matter: Competition and Frictions in Data Practices under the Global Compact on Refugees.” PhD thesis, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, 2025.
Members of the Geneva Graduate Institute can access the thesis via this page of the repository. Others can contact Dr Nannerini.

Banner image: Vojtech Hlavicka/Shutterstock. 
Interview by Nathalie Tanner, Research Office.