 In order to get our research ideas, our research findings and so on to help inform or change policy, we need to know how ideas and concepts travel among these different spheres and how they're modified and modulated en route, so how concepts change. I just want to give a few examples of this process, if you like, at least the way I see it to explain to you what I mean. So let me start with the, it's often, or it's sometimes said, a common critique of migration research and particularly refugee related research is that that research takes rather uncritically, and to uncritically, concepts drawn from the policy, the governmental sphere. So let me give you some examples, I'm going to give you three very briefly examples, IDPs, the notion of internally displaced persons, people, asylum seekers, and the notion of diaspora that we've heard so much about during this conference. So first of all IDPs, perhaps the worst example of a policy category being translated into or picked up by research and rather uncritically reproduced in the research literature. Is it not gross to label a human being by an acronym IDP, I ask you. So I suggest to you that social science research, in which I include economists, by the way, even though they are slightly different species, has colluded in this consolidation of this notion of IDP from essentially a policy or governmental category into a real world or social category. Such that those people themselves take up that very identity IDP, they call themselves, some people call themselves IDP, and seek to maintain it, to preserve it. They don't want to lose it since it involves resources and entitlements, humanitarian assistance, and the claim to eventual return to your homeland. So there's an example of how a policy category has entered into research, and researchers can help to consolidate that concept. So you can see perhaps the way it's moving. In this case, just between research, the research sphere, and the policy sphere. Let me move to the notion of asylum seekers, essentially, again, another policy or governmental term that, again, has been taken up somewhat uncritically by social science research, and has, again, come to take on a life of its own as a real world category, social category, since, again, entitlements, and so on, attach to that category. In addition, unlike the term IDP, asylum seeker has, the term asylum seeker has entered the public realm into public discourse, sometimes positively much more often as a term of abuse. So that term asylum seeker, one sees in the press, in Britain and elsewhere, as a term of abuse. So you can see how that notion has traveled amongst those three spheres that I'm identifying here. The third term that I want to look at is the term diaspora, much mentioned in this conference and perhaps used in a rather uncritical way, and that I would suggest to you has taken a rather different trajectory, a rather interesting trajectory, I think, in that, unlike the others, it didn't start out in the governmental or policy sphere. Essentially it came through an academic route, from literary and cultural studies, it moved in the 1990s, mid to late 1990s into political science and sociology, and then it took a rather interesting trajectory that partly as a result of academic research in the late 1990s, it was picked up by the policy world. First of all, the international or the intergovernmental policy world of the UN, the World Bank, IOM, and so on, the European Union, and national development arms like DFID, and so on, the French one, and so on, and so on. At more or less the same time, it was taken up, or a little bit later, taken up by governments of the countries of origin of these diaspora groups, and as you know we've seen this proliferation of diaspora outreach, ministries, departments and institutions. Roughly at the same time as all that was happening in the policy sphere, the governmental sphere, if you like, the idea, the notion of diaspora was taken up by diaspora groups themselves, which were formally known as migrant communities or ethnic communities or whatever. The term diaspora was not really in common currency before, I would say, about the year 2000, but after that it took up a kind of life of its own and an exponential increase in use. So migrant groups themselves began to identify as diasporas, not least again because there was a degree of power and identity and sometimes resources associated with that identity. And then, so suddenly everyone was calling themselves a diaspora and everyone seemed to be in a diaspora. And in turn that public and policy take up of the notion of diaspora, which I'm suggesting derives from the academic or the research realm, fed back into research. So it was a matter of interest that the policy world and diaspora groups, formally known as migrant communities, were using this term. It was a kind of feedback relationship. So I think we need, if we're going to influence policy through our research, through our thinking, we need to know a bit about how these ideas travel amongst these different spheres. So my simple point, that if we want our research to influence policy, we need to know how these concepts travel between and how they're modified and modulated, how they feed back and so on en route. Thank you.