Beyond scholarly publications and communications, what do we do with our knowledge of crisis, disadvantage, or domination? 

 In this presentation, I reflect on my experience of (or attempt at) what Ernest Boyer referred to as the scholarship of engagement. The scholarship of engagement entails putting the power of our ideas and knowledge in service to pressing societal problems, including inequality, poverty, racism and sexism, and environmental crisis. For Boyer (1996), when we take the scholarship of engagement seriously, we use research and knowledge "in the search for answers to our most pressing social, civic, economic, and moral problems" (Boyer, 1996, p.11). One aspect of the scholarship of engagement is evidence-based advocacy. To advocate is to work on behalf of those on the margin of society. To scholarly advocate is to use robust evidence to push for changes in policy and practice. It aims at raising awareness about unjust inequalities in society, empowering people who live with disadvantages, and influencing policy actions.

 This paper outlines three pillars of scholarly advocacy: empirical evidence, ethical expectations, and theoretical commitments. 

Empirical Grounds

 In a recently completed nationally funded project, I explored the educational experiences and attainment of refugee-background African youth in Australia. Data were generated through interviews with young people and equity practitioners at schools and universities, policy document reviews, and statistical information requests from government agencies. The study's findings highlight the group's policy invisibility, the low success rate in higher education, and the experience of racial Othering.

 Ethical Expectations

Is it ethically acceptable to use refugee stories without any benefit to them? To answer this question, it is important to start with expectations of procedural ethics. Beyond the empirical evidence on persisting disadvantage of refugees, my advocacy work has also been guided by a desire to meet the ethical expectations regarding the fair distribution of research benefits. Echoing ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report, the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research defines justice as one of the key principles that guide human studies. The National Statement underlines the importance of ensuring distributive and procedural justice in human research: "While benefit to humankind is an important result of research, it also matters that benefits of research are achieved through just means, are distributed fairly, and involve no unjust burdens" (NHMRC, ARC & UA, 2018, p.9). In other words, ethical research is not extractive; it does not extract data and run away with little or no commitment to the voices and benefits of the participants. Ethical research uses the stories of the participants to generate benefits to them. There might be many ways to ensure that the benefits of research are distributed fairly. In refugee research, I believe one way of ensuring fair and timely distribution of the benefits of research is through evidence-based advocacy work.

Theoretical Commitments

 My research is also informed by a critical theory of society, which assumes that existing relations and power dynamics are not "givens to be verified" (Horkheimer, 1972, p.244) but social constructions that reflect the interests of powerful members of society. Accordingly, the role of the critical social researcher is to faithfully reflect reality from the situation and perspective of the disadvantaged. As Collier (1998) noted, "When it is just a set of false beliefs that enslaves, their replacement by true beliefs is liberation" (p. 461, emphasis in original). In essence, critical theory challenges what Bourdieu refers to as "a 'socially weightless' mode of thought that is so far removed from ordinary dynamics of oppression that ultimately its own validity and normative relevance is thrown into question" (McNay 2012, p.235). Put differently, a critical scholar cannot afford to be a 'disinterested expert' and should not assume the position of a neutral observer—taking a stance on issues is an unavoidable responsibility.

The main project from which this paper is developed drew on a multimethod inquiry approach (Hesse-Biber & Johnson, 2015) that combined critical inquiry and quantitative data to shed light on key indicators of African refugee integration. The research used a range of methods of data generation tools. I interviewed 44 refugee-background AHAY-R (26 male and 18 female), six equity managers in five universities, and nine school career counsellors and Multicultural Education Aides of government secondary schools in Victoria. Most African-heritage youth who participated in the study came to Australia with their parents at a young age (only two participants reported arriving as unaccompanied underage refugees). Before they signed the consent forms, all participants were given plain-language statements and were fully informed of the study's purpose. The length of the interviews ranged from 45 minutes to 70 minutes. In addition, HE participation and population Census data sets were also secured from, respectively, the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training (DET) and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). I also reviewed national and institutional equity policy documents. The analysis proceeded inductively, from identifying meaningful segments to building themes. Although the initial data sense-making occurred simultaneously with data generation, the formal coding process involved immersion in the personal accounts of each participant. I thematically coded the transcribed data. That is, I closely read the textual data (policy documents and interview transcripts), identified meaningful segments to mark relevant sections, and mapped out emerging themes and patterns. Then, by way of synthesising the empirical data and theoretical concepts, I constructed emergent themes associated with the educational experiences and integration outcomes of AHAY-R. The themes were then theoretically re-described; that is, the participant accounts and policy reviews were placed in the context of ideas and concepts drawn from the literature. As Danermark et al. (2002) noted, applying theory to empirical data enables a social researcher to detect "meanings and connections that are not given in our habitual way of perceiving the world" (p. 94). Retrospective analysis of the lived experience of refugee youth is instrumental in understanding their life-courses, including how their current condition relates to their past experiences and future opportunities. That means accessing constructed reality requires interactive data generation instruments such as interviews and focus group discussions.

My account of advocacy entails two elements. First, in many instances, after the interview sessions, I spent considerable time advising how my participants could strategise their responses to racial discrimination. Following disturbing accounts of experiences of racism, I discussed with participants about practical measures they should take when facing racial discrimination. During the fieldwork, I learned that a commitment to ethics-in-practice necessitates intercultural competence, relational integrity, and ethic of care. Second, in an effort to raise awareness about the triad challenges African youth encounter in society, I wrote short commentaries for media outlets. Specifically, I wrote commentaries to The Conversation; I appeared in local community radio (SBS/Amharic); I gave interviews to journalists at The Australian, The Geelong Advertiser, and Educational Review; and I published in professional outlets such as The TAFE Teacher and Research Professional News. The proposed presentation sheds light on key foundations of scholarly advocacy work in the areas of refugee education and integration. It specifically highlights how the synergy of empirical evidence, a desire to meet ethical expectations, and a commitment to critical theory support the scholarship of engagement. In the era of increased scepticism toward expertise and science, it is crucial that we firmly establish the warrant for our advocacy work. Our public engagement needs to draw on rich and sound empirical evidence. Relatedly, engaged scholarship requires a dedication to ensuring that the benefits of our research are distributed fairly to our participants and their communities. Finally, our theoretical disposition must align with our intellectual commitment to advocacy and social justice. In this regard, critical research is disposed to entertain the dual concerns of (a) why things are as they are and (b) how they can be made different. Doing scholarly advocacy entails using knowledge on behalf of research participants and making the knowledge available to them so they can use it on their own behalf.

Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Polity Press. Boyer, E. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11-20. Collier, A. (1998). Explanation and emancipation. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier et al. (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings (pp. 444-472). Routledge. Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining Society: An Introduction to Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. London: Routledge. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Johnson, R. B. (Eds.). (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory: Selected essays. Continuum. McNay, L. (2012). Suffering, silence and social weightlessness: Honneth and Bourdieu on embodiment and power. In S. Gonzalez-Arnal, , G. Jagger & K. Lennon (Eds.) Embodied selves (pp.230-248). Palgrave Macmillan. Molla, T. (2021). Critical policy scholarship in education: An overview. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.5655 NHMRC [the National Health and Medical Research Council]. (2018). Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Said, E. (1994). Representations of the intellectual. Vintage.