BASW Member Blog | The Culture of Disbelief in Asylum Decision-Making

Why Are We Drawn to This Work?

There are many reasons why professionals choose to work with separated children. For some it’s a deep commitment to justice and care. For others it’s the chance to make a tangible difference in the lives of those navigating displacement and uncertainty.

But I’ve often found myself reflecting on a more uncomfortable question: why do some practitioners approach this work with suspicion, particularly when it comes to age assessments and accepting the social histories of young people seeking asylum?

Empathy, Mistrust, and the Minority View

In my experience the majority of social workers in this field demonstrate empathy, sensitivity, and a trauma-informed approach. They understand the complexity of migration, the fragility of trust, and the importance of listening well.

Yet there remains a distinct minority whose practice is shaped more by doubt than understanding. This isn’t just a matter of professional style, but it reflects a deeper issue within the system itself.

The Culture of Disbelief

The term culture of disbelief is well established in asylum discourse. It describes a systemic tendency to question the credibility of those seeking protection; often shaped by media narratives that portray asylum seekers as “bogus” or opportunistic economic migrants.

These tropes seep into professional spaces. Practitioners are not immune to politics. We bring our own identities, values, and biases into the room. The Social GRACES framework offers a useful lens for reflecting on how aspects of our identity, such as gender, race, culture, and class, shape our interactions. Perhaps it’s time we explicitly include political worldview within that framework, acknowledging its quiet but powerful influence on practice.

The Empathy Gap in Legal Spaces

Jennifer Allsopp’s recent research explores the concept of an empathy gap in asylum tribunals, particularly for former unaccompanied minors. Her work reveals how professionals in courtroom settings often perceive individuals along a continuum, from objects of empathy to objects of antipathy. These perceptions, she argues, directly impact outcomes.

This insight is crucial. Those involved in age assessments and asylum decisions are tasked with making complex judgments. But these judgments are never made in a vacuum, they’re shaped by both visible and invisible forces, including personal beliefs, institutional culture, and emotional responses.

Holding Complexity with Compassion

So how do we reconcile the tension between professional scepticism and humanistic care? How can practitioners remain attuned and respectful, even when they feel they’re not being told the “full truth”?

Professor Ravi Kohli’s concept of thick and thin stories offers a compelling framework (Kohli, 2007). Thin stories are the simplified, linear narratives that asylum seekers often present, crafted to meet legal thresholds and shaped by what is deemed admissible. Thick stories, by contrast, are rich, layered accounts of life. They hold relationships, contradictions, silences, and resilience. They reflect the full humanity of the individual, not just their eligibility for protection.

In my experience, thick stories are often challenging to retell. They require trust, time, and space. But they are also where truth lives.

Final Reflections

Like many socially uncomfortable topics, the culture of disbelief is difficult to name—let alone address. But when teams and colleagues create space to talk about it, transformation becomes possible.

Reaching evidence-based decisions through a trauma-informed lens should be the baseline. There are tools and frameworks that help us stay grounded in good practice, while also supporting young people to share their stories in ways that do no further harm—and ideally, offer a space to explore strength, dignity, and hope.