The FOCUS project is undertaking a range of research and piloting tasks which aim to improve understanding of dynamic integration and to assist the implementation of effective practices. As part of this work a detailed programme of qualitative research has been undertaken in four countries. This report presents the country-specific findings of this research, which will be further consolidated in a cross-site analysis to be completed in the coming months. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with members of the receiving communities and with members of the arriving communities in a total of 10 site in four countries which have different experiences of migration from Syria in recent years (Sweden, Germany, Jordan, Croatia). 

This chapter explores through an understanding of the history and development of the situation of statelessness across the region – a consequence of nation-state formation, state succession and/or discriminatory ethnic, religious and gender law and policy – the striking commonalities in both the causes and consequences of statelessness. It focuses on how the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region lacks a common language on statelessness which may have contributed to the fact that these groups are often discussed in isolation of one another, with a limited sense of having a shared cause. The chapter also focuses on how the current framework for understating statelessness in the region can obstruct opportunities to address the issue regionally and can even be used to perpetuate statelessness. Discrimination against women in nationality laws can be found in legislation around the world. Statelessness has also resulted from the 'Arabisation' movement that took hold of the region in the 1960s and 1970s.

Main Findings:

AI systems are increasingly being used to shift decisions made by humans over to automated systems, potentially limiting the space for democratic participation. The risk that AI erodes democracy is exacerbated where most people are excluded from the ownership and production of AI technologies that will impact them.

AI learns through datasets but, very often, that data excludes key parts of the population. Where marginalized groups are considered, datasets often contain derogatory terms, or exclude explanatory contextual information, that is hard to accurately categorise in a format that AI can process. Resulting biases within AI design raise concerns as to the quality and representativeness of AI-based decisions and their impact on society.

There is very little two-way communication between the developers and users of AI-technologies such that the latter function only as personal data providers. Being largely excluded from the development of AI’s role in human decision-making, everyday individuals may feel more marginalized and disinterested in building a healthy and sustainable society.

Yet, AI’s capacity for seeing patterns in big data provides new ways to reach parts of the population excluded from traditional policymaking. It can serve to identify structural discrimination and include information from those otherwise ignored in important decisions. AI could enhance public participation by both providing decision-makers with better data and helping to communicate complex decisions – and their consequences – to wider parts of the population.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved into a prominent player in various academic disciplines, transforming research approaches and knowledge generation. This paper explores the growing influence of AI across diverse fields and advocates for meaningful interdisciplinary AI research. It introduces the concept of "agonistic-antagonistic" interdisciplinary research, emphasizing a departure from conventional bridge-building approaches. Motivated by the need to address complex societal challenges, the paper calls for novel evaluation mechanisms that prioritize societal impact over traditional academic metrics. It stresses the importance of collaboration, challenging current systems that prioritize competition and individual excellence. The paper offers guiding principles for creating collaborative and co-productive interdisciplinary AI research environments, welcoming researchers to engage in discussions and contribute to the future of interdisciplinary AI research.

This deliverable consists of five tasks which were designed to gain an in-depth and broad understanding of the state-of-the-art on research, policy and practice on integration of refugees and host community relations. This was undertaken to form a foundation upon which to build Work Packages focusing on the field work (WP 3 and 4), the development of a refugee and host community toolbox (WP5 and 6) and the dissemination of all of these (WP7). To achieve this, WP2 has been divided into five separate, though highly interrelated Tasks. This includes; Task 2.1. a state-of-the-art review of the literature and research on the socio-economic integration of refugees. Task 2.2. a state- of-the-art review of the literature and research on the socio-psychological integration of refugees. Task 2.3 Part I. a comparative analysis of integration policies in Croatia, Germany, Jordan and Sweden. Task 2.3 Part II. a qualitative study of professionals’ views on integration practices in Europe. Task 2.4 a state-of-the-art desk review, interviews with key informants and a workshop with practitioners on the tools and solutions for successful integration of refugees. Finally, Task 2.5, a state-of-the-art review on the flows and patterns of asylum migration from Syria to, and sometimes through, Croatia, Germany, Jordan and Sweden.

The findings of these tasks showed the following. First, there are significant gaps in our knowledge about aspects of integration of refugees beyond labour market integration. This is especially apparent with regards to the understanding of socio-psychological integration. In addition, WP 2.4 also highlighted that practitioners noted that they were unable to keep up to date with the latest research on integration of refugees and that while general tools and solutions exist, they were often difficult to navigate anat d implement on the ground in different contexts. Therefore, the challenge is not just to fill this knowledge gaps, but also to disseminate the findings in an impactful way to key stakeholders and end users. Our new understanding of these knowledge gaps has already been drawn on to shape the methodology of the field research (WP 3-4), I the hope of addressing them in part at least. The results of WP3-4 will, in turn, inform the development of the toolbox in WP 5-6, as will the engagement of end users with the research findings.

Second, when looking at the integration policies of the four research sites, as well as the views on integration policies more generally by key actors in Europe, we can see there are shared approaches and foci. For example, how integration is understood, and the focus on achieving it by granting access to the labour market in all states, or more activity encouraging and facilitating this access (which can be seen in the European states and Jordan). While EU laws may have an impact here, as identified in WP 2.3 Part II, this is also a result of many organisations reliance on the EU’s AMIF funding, which key stakeholders and practitioners reported as having a significant impact on integration policy and practice.

Finally, with the exception of a few cases in Sweden, most of the refugees from Syria have been issued temporary residence permits in the four states. While the nature and duration of these vary considerably, securing permanent residency requires that the refugee has ‘integrated’ to some degree (except in the case of Jordan where acquiring permanent residence is not possible). The demand of the three European states vary, but, for example, all require the refugee has either secured employment or has reached a certain level of language proficiency etc. In general, with the exception of Sweden (who mainstreamed migration in all state activities), there is a lack of state-run public awareness raising initiatives or activities to encourage the host community to fulfil their part of the integration process. Here the findings of WP 2.4 provide a valuable resource in reflecting on small- and large-scale integration policies and the tools that have been used to bridge this gap between the two communities.

This one-day workshop will explore fabulations in design research. Bringing together design researchers and practitioners in hands-on exploration and critical dialogue, we will explore emerging practices and potentials of using fabulations in futures-oriented and exploratory practice-based design research. Drawing on fabulations’ relations with feminist technoscience and more-than-human concerns, we seek to understand if and how the practice of fabulating can contribute to designing vibrant worlds that can flourish in new ways.

The research presented here explores the nuances of data collection and sharing via digital platforms in everyday CrossFit coaching practice. There is a growing body of work on data and digital platforms in CrossFit, though currently there is a lack of understanding of the role of coaches in these processes. Empirically grounding the digital fitness practices of CrossFit coaching is essential for our understanding of the sport, as well as to critically engage with the dominant socio-technical narratives of the digital fitness revolution: narratives that obscure the agency of coaches. This research foregrounds the coaches’ agency and lived experiences, focusing on their everyday coaching practices around data and digital platforms. Six semi-structured in-depth interviews with CrossFit coaches in Sweden were undertaken in 2023. These focused on if, when, how and why they collect, or encourage their participants to collect, data on their training and share this via digital platforms. The findings reveal several different, though interrelated, areas where the CrossFit coaches can be seen as mediating between often competing narratives around data and digital platforms. These everyday practices include mediating between group vs. individual training, data collection and sharing vs. “moving well”, CrossFit's methodology of quantification of fitness vs. the needs of the participants and navigating the techno-solutionist vs. reductionist narratives around digital fitness tracking.

 The field of hybrid human-artificial intelligence (HHAI), although primarily driven by developments in AI, also requires fundamentally new approaches and solutions. Multidisciplinary in nature, it calls for collaboration across various research domains, such as AI, HCI, the cognitive and social sciences, philosophy and ethics, and complex systems, to name but a few. 

This book presents the proceedings of HHAI 2024, the 3rd International Conference on Hybrid Human-Artificial Intelligence, held from 10-14 June 2024 in Malmö, Sweden. The focus of HHAI 2024 was on artificially-intelligent systems that cooperate synergistically, proactively and purposefully with humans, amplifying rather than replacing human intelligence. A total of 62 submissions were received for the main track of the conference, of which 31 were accepted for presentation after a thorough double blind review process. These comprised 9 full papers, 5 blue sky papers, and 17 working papers, making the final acceptance rate for full papers 29%. Acceptance rate across all tracks of the main program was 50%. This book contains all submissions accepted for the main track, as well as the proposals for the Doctoral Consortium and extended abstracts from the Posters and Demos track. Topics covered include human-AI interaction and collaboration; learning, reasoning and planning with humans and machines in the loop; fair, ethical, responsible, and trustworthy AI; societal awareness of AI; and the role of design and compositionality of AI systems in interpretable/collaborative AI, among others. 

Providing a current overview of research and development, the book will be of interest to all those working in the field and facilitate the ongoing exchange and development of ideas across a range of disciplines.

All the Nordic states (except for Iceland at the time of analysis) have published a national artificial intelligencestrategy (NAIS) document. The NAISs provide a window through which to view a consolidated point where statesset out a socio-technical imaginary ostensibly focused on the impact of AI on the national society but, in so doing,communicate present-day value-laden assumptions. These future visions see an expansion in the scale and scope ofprivate-sector-driven AI applications in healthcare provision as inevitable, positive, and justified based on a promiseof efficiency. In so doing, the NAISs institutionalise a shift in how issues of participation, deliberation, and inclusionin health are structured in the future. The article asks what kind of ‘welfare’ the NAISs present for the Nordic regionwith respect to the governance, role, and ownership of AI healthcare. In so doing, it reveals how the NAISs providea vehicle by which to enable a paradigm shift in state–market relations that is, nonetheless, hidden from politicalscrutiny through its technological futurism

In the last few years, we have seen an explosion in the scale and scope of AI health, a trend only exacerbated by COVID-19. Due to the uptake of AI applications in health, the global health landscape has seen significant shifts. To help understand this development and how best to achieve the potential of AI health technologies, it is necessary to critically look at the global political economy through which AI health technologies are made possible. There is a need to see this political economy as embedded in the everyday relations through which healthcare functions. The everyday level of how patients and healthcare professionals engage with AI health technology is essential to knowing how these new tools can help tackle forms of discrimination and other obstacles currently preventing universal health coverage.

Health services and medical research are subject to growing use of ADM. Whilst such technology brings many benefits, it is important to understand that it is not just a tool but involves a more fundamental shift in the infrastructure through which healthcare takes place. Where that development is driven by the private sector, it also indicates a wider paradigmatic change in how healthcare is provided. To ensure that ADM in healthcare follows an equitable path that benefits humanity, it is necessary to begin asking critical questions as to the power relations through which it is taking place but also it maintains and strengthens as the technology becomes ubiquitous. The chapter expands on the notion of the everyday as a means for contesting the current elitist and exclusionary model of ADM in healthcare by drawing upon two other related but distinct approaches to the everyday-‘Everyday International Political Economy’ in which the everyday can sometimes take power through institutional and economic means, and Davina Cooper’s focus on ‘everyday utopias’ as a space in which actors can perform alternative ways of social and political being. An enriched understanding of the everyday provides a means to reimagine the automation of healthcare as a sphere for collaborative future-making that is much more equitable than the currently skewed economic model for global health.

The term ‘artificial intelligence’ has arguably come to function in political discourse as, what Laclau called, an ‘empty signifier’. This article traces the shifting political discourse on AI within three key institutions of global governance–OHCHR, WHO, and UNESCO–and, in so doing, highlights the role of ‘crisis’ moments in justifying a series of pivotal re-articulations. Most important has been the attachment of AI to the narrative around digital automation in human healthcare. Greatly enabled by the societal context of the pandemic, all three institutions have moved from being critical of the unequal power relations in the economy of AI to, today, reframing themselves primarily as facilitators tasked with helping to ensure the application of AI technologies. The analysis identifies a shift in which human health and healthcare is framed as in a ‘crisis’ to which AI technology is presented as the remedy. The article argues the need to trace these discursive shifts as a means by which to understand, monitor, and where necessary also hold to account these changes in the governance of AI in society.

The paper examines how the increasing datafication of society and advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) offer new empirical opportunities to better understand the Minimum Content of Nationality (MCN). Despite the critical importance of the MCN in statelessness, it has largely been ignored in academic and policy circles. The ambiguity that results from this lack of engagement greatly complicates efforts to identify and protect people affected by statelessness. I argue that there is growing potential to draw on the massive increase in data on the everyday lived experiences of individuals, along with advances in AI technologies, to help narrow in on the MCN. The article sets out a future research agenda as well as highlighting the limitations, ethical considerations and potential risks associated with using AI in this context.

There are seventeen million people in the world who are stateless, not considered as citizens by any state. They suffer due to the current function of citizenship in the nation-state system, occupying a legal space outside of the system, yet, their lives are very much blighted by the system itself. This research examines the possibility that global citizenship could be a means to address statelessness. Global citizenship, unlike (national) citizenship, is, in theory, inclusive, and membership is based on our shared humanity. However, when approaching the global citizenship literature, two concerns became apparent. First, there is a significant lack of theorisation on the stateless in the discourse, and second, some scholars make the assumption that a global citizen has citizenship of a state – which the stateless do not. To begin to overcome these concerns, this research develops and implements a stateless centric perspective on global citizenship, using it to analyse the situation of the stateless in the case of Lebanon. The stateless centric approach developed here, views global citizenship through the actions and perspectives of those addressing statelessness. With four large and protracted stateless populations, Lebanon provides an empirically rich context, within which to undertake this research. The findings of the stateless centric perspective problematise the received wisdom of citizenship, the nation-state and allows for the exploration of the expressions and tensions in the practices of global citizenship. Drawing on a contextualised understanding of these practices, a ‘patchwork’ approach to global citizenship is proposed. This sees the creation of a public political space as an act of global citizenship, when it draws on universal principles. These universal principles are used to justify this space, taking on an instrumental role. It is a patchwork as these spaces can be seen in the wider global context, as either directly or indirectly connected, through their shared use of universal principles. By centralising the stateless in our conceptualisations of the nation-state, citizenship and global citizenship, the value of taking a stateless centric perspective, and its ability to draw out further nuances in the debate, is shown.

This short playful piece is a result of my participation in the Collaborative Foresight Cycle on the Futures of AI and Sustainability. Hosted by Media Evolution in Malmö between May and June 2022, the Cycle brought together a broad range of actors to co-create and explore the future possibilities of AI in relation to sustainability. This piece is a response to the hopelessness which has arisen due to the limited and often dystopian future(s) of planetary health with which we are faced. To counter this, it is posited that AI can be used as an imaginative tool and act as a catalyst for the creation of different and disruptive possible futures of planetary health. By doing so, possibilities such as utopianism and collection action can be put back on the table. 

Iran has yet to be the subject of research looking into the gaps in the nationality law, which, could create and perpetuate statelessness. There were however, several pre-identified populations, some members of which are believed to be affected by statelessness, as well as gender discrimination in the nationality law - which causes and increases the risk of rendering children stateless. Therefore, based on this previous knowledge of potentially stateless populations, and the gaps/lack of certain safeguards against statelessness in the nationality law, this research provides a foundation for understanding nationality and statelessness in the country.

This piece is a comparative analysis of major parties’ manifesto pledges on AI for the 2024 UK general election.

This article challenges the concept of de facto (by fact) statelessness, often conceptualised as ineffective citizenship, from being included within the statelessness discourse. This is done by considering the nexus between de jure (by law) statelessness and de facto citizenship. The argument that if someone can have citizenship that is so ineffective they are de facto stateless is extended to consider if a person can receive such effective ‘citizenship’, despite de jure statelessness, that they should be considered a de facto citizen, thus not stateless. By drawing upon the example of the stateless Estonians of Russian origin, the dangers of not recognising the centrality of the legal bond of citizenship, seen in attempts to incorporate de facto statelessness into the statelessness debate, are reflected upon. De facto ‘statelessness’ is shown not only to underutilise the plethora of human rights conventions available, but also to threaten the statelessness conventions themselves.

This chapter explores the impact of being statelessness on individuals and communities who are displaced. It starts with an overview of statelessness, the numbers those people affected, the major stateless populations around the world, how statelessness is created and perpetuated and the presentation of two case studies of displaced stateless populations.  Following this, it covers the challenges that statelessness poses to those affected by it, as well as to social work practitioners working with them are presented. These are broken down to macro, meso and micro challenges. To assist the readers in overcoming these challenges key knowledge, capabilities and approaches for social workers supporting stateless persons are set out. The chapter concludes with discussion points for students and pedagogy suggestions for those leading courses on statelessness and displacement.  

To better understand and tackle poverty amongst stateless people it is proposed here that statelessness be considered through the lens of structural violence. 

Many of the protracted situations of statelessness that we face today have arisen due to State succession. In addition, State succession continues to poses a risk with regard to the creation of further large scale cases of statelessness. Therefore, there is a need to better understand how to prevent and resolve statelessness in situations of State succession. This chapter argues that if we are to effectively do so, historic, economic, political and socio-psychological factors must be considered in policy and practice to ensure that legal safeguards to prevent and reduce statelessness are not out of sync with the context within which the law is being applied. To contextualize this discussion, the chapter explores the various underexplored factors which lead to the creation of large stateless populations in Central Asian States following their succession from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As reflected by the successful efforts of Kyrgyzstan to overcome some of the past disjuncture between the citizenship law, its implementation and the context within which it is being applied, it is claimed that the effectiveness of efforts to prevent and reduce statelessness following State succession, and pre-empt problems in the future, require States to adopt reactive and flexible policies that are sensitive to the various historic, economic, political and socio-psychological factors influencing the population. Such an approach is situated within the international law surrounding the avoidance of statelessness in cases of State succession, notably the requirement that States take all appropriate measure to avoid statelessness.

This paper explores the law and policy related to the identification, assessment, and recording of the statelessness of refugees in the Swedish asylum procedure. It considers the gaps in law and policy that can lead to a stateless refugee remaining in a prolonged, or potentially, indefinite stateless situation and the impacts of the temporary asylum law introduced in 2016. The temporary law can be seen to undermine useful legislation that saw many stateless refugees receiving citizenship after four years. However, the new State discourse introduced full-time employment or completion of education as a requirement to acquire permanent residence, a prerequisite for citizenship. Therefore, these can be seen as new naturalisation criteria for certain migrants, which could mark a shift from Sweden’s previous trend towards increasingly liberal access to citizenship since the 1950s.

Given the current hype around artificial intelligence (AI) in health, it is not surprising that we are seeing the well-established role and power of future visions being played out by a range of actors in the area. One example is the surge in the adoption of national AI strategies (NASs). NASs have a structuring function, justifying current political decisions as well as (re)framing the conditions of possibility of AI in society. This paper explores the sociotechnical imaginaries (SIs) of AI in health in the NASs of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The findings reveal that a shared common future vision can be identified, though some variations in the justification of how and why this should be realised exist between the states. This common future vision is of the inevitable and ever-increasing scale and scope of AI in health. This is a process driven and implemented by the private sector, a future which is normalised and legitimised through the promise of greater efficiency and progress. However, a tension between the role of states as simply reacting to, as well as being essential facilitators of, the realisation of this shared vision is identified, a tension that results from technological promises.

The issue of statelessness has begun to receive attention from a legal perspective. While this work should be commended and continue this article argues that we should also remember that at its core statelessness is a human issue that deeply affects the lives of those who suffer from it. It causes and perpetuates, amongst other things, extreme poverty and human insecurity. Statelessness is still greatly under-examined and under-appreciated as a potentially significant barrier to progress in the humanitarian and development fields. This piece aims to begin to situate statelessness as an important issue within these fields. This is done by taking the framework of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and looking at how statelessness affects the realization of each and every goal. This approach shows that by overlooking statelessness development actors and agencies could be failing to meet the needs of the world’s poorest. While far from being a comprehensive analysis of all available literature on statelessness and its relationship to each goal, this article is as an exploratory piece with the aim of encouraging development actors and agencies to recognise the importance of statelessness in their current and future projects and work to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between statelessness, poverty and human insecurity.

The paper is part of a wider research project which seeks to explore the nexus between statelessness and refugee-ness at global, national and individual level. The relationship between the two legal concepts has not received much attention. This is surprising given that one in ten refugees globally are believed to be stateless. To begin to unpack this relationship, Denmark and Sweden are used as case studies. This article sets out an initial law and policy analysis of the national level frameworks related to identifying statelessness in the Danish and Swedish asylum system, or addressing it following the acceptance of a refugee. This will be discussed in relation to how these contribute to, or address, the situation of indefinite statelessness for stateless refugees. Further to this, the paper seeks to draw out the impacts of the temporary asylum laws in both states with regard to the barriers stateless refugees face in acquiring citizenship. Issues such as cessation of refugee status, the undeportability of some former refugees who are stateless and instances of arbitrary detention are discussed in relation to Denmark and Sweden’s international obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

This chapter critically engages with a central policy norm developed by key international actors working on statelessness and refugeeness over the last three decades. This is the norm that for stateless refugees their refugeeness effectively trumps their statelessness. I term this norm, which arbitrarily separates and ranks statelessness and refugeeness, the “protection hierarchy”. This norm is increasingly being called into question by a range of actors due to growth of research on stateless refugees which shows that statelessness is both very impactful and highly intertwined with refugeeness.The chapter empirically interrogates this normative policy position, showing that the “protection hierarchy” not only fails to protect stateless refugees, but actually increases the populations’ vulnerability. Due to this, the chapter argues for the use of evidenced based policies on stateless refugees and the dismantling of the ”protection hierarchy”.

Milbrandt’s article highlights the need for increased debate surrounding the dire situation in which many stateless persons around the world find themselves.1 It provides a step in the right direction in that his article attempts to challenge the phenomena of statelessness and reduce its prevalence in the world. However, the idea put forward of global registration of stateless persons is critically flawed for several reasons. First it is based on a theoretically weak definition of statelessness that leaves many questions unanswered. Second pragmatic concerns with regard to how registration may not be possible within certain local socio-political context are drawn out. Third, Milbrandt fails to acknowledge the key dangers of global registration which can be clearly seen if historic and current examples of registering the stateless are considered.

Essentially this article stresses that statelessness does not exist within a political vacuum. While it can sometimes be simply rectified through a techno-legal fix it also exists within a political space of discrimination. This political space created and perpetuates the current stateless situations we find across the world today. It is argued here that a one size fits all policy of registering all stateless persons is unfeasible, will not lead to the perceived outcomes and could in fact increase the vulnerability of some stateless populations. Instead more context sensitive methods of understanding and tackling statelessness are proposed.

This article is a reflection piece on the use of the futures cone and an expanded futures cone (which draws on queer theory) as a tool for dialogue and planning between the supervisor and the doctoral student. I do so by situating the use of this tool in relation to three supervision typologies: the product-orientated,process-orientatedand doctoral student-orientated approaches. I claim that it is an underused and highly versatile tool for doctoral supervision.

The future role of AI in healthcare is largely seen as positive, inevitable, necessary, and driven by the private sector. These dominant narratives obscure decision-making about these future applications, with little room for political scrutiny, or public participation. Public, and private resources, are being funnelled to support various AI health technologies. By prioritising some and not others, we are being set on a path that will greatly impact our future health, lives, and societies. My research sheds light on these processes and provides tools to expand the scope for inclusive public participation in the debate on future role of AI in healthcare. 

This paper presents the findings of 33 interviews, carried out in 2017, examining the factors influencing Palestinian refugees from Syria (PRS) in choosing Germany or Sweden as asylum destinations. The findings showed that there was a very high degree of destination specificity towards Sweden for nearly all of the participants. This was based on their desire to reach Sweden due to its accessible citizenship as compared to other European or Arab states. This paper details how most of the refugees had conducted research, drawing on information from social networks and other sources, in order to establish in which European country they could most easily and quickly acquire citizenship. As a consequence of the prioritisation of resolving their and their families’ statelessness as quickly as possible, the interviewees often devalued social and human capital. Considerations related to economic or educational opportunities played only a marginal role in the decision making. This research finds that in order to better understand the migration of stateless refugees, their desire to resolve their statelessness should be considered as a potentially significant aspect of their choice of asylum destination.

This article explores the relationship between statelessness and refugeeness over time and space. It does so by drawing on how Palestinian refugees from Syria in Sweden navigate the various stateless and refugee labels imposed upon them before, during and after their flight from Syria to Sweden. Standpoint theory was deployed as the basis for understanding how this group of stateless refugees related to these labels. While the research found that, even though the labelling process was largely non-participatory, both as a manifestation for epistemic agency and a vehicle for epistemic justice in statelessness and refugee research, standpoint theory has offered an indispensable lens through which we have accessed the multiple strategies that the interviewees adopted to accept, reject, resist or negotiate their re/de-labelling throughout their journey.

There is increasing recognition of the role that artificial intelligence (AI) systems can play in managing health crises. One such approach, which allows for analysing the potential consequences of different policy interventions is agent-based social simulations (ABSS). Here, the actions and interactions of autonomous agents are modelled to generate virtual societies that can serve as a “testbed” for investigating and comparing different interventions and scenarios. This piece focuses on two key challenges of ABSS in collaborative policy interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These were defining valuable scenarios to simulate and the availability of appropriate data. This paper posits that drawing on the research on the “everyday” digital health perspective in designing ABSS before or during health crises, can overcome aspects of these challenges. The focus on digital health interventions reflects a rapid shift in the adoption of such technologies during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, and the new challenges this poses for policy makers. It is argued that by accounting for the everyday digital health in modelling, ABSS would be a more powerful tool in future health crisis management.