The "Meet Our Researchers" series showcases the incredible scholars at Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). Through engaging interviews conducted by our undergraduate research assistants, we explore the journeys, passions, and insights of CDDRL’s faculty and researchers.

How can empathy and perspective-taking be implemented on a larger scale, and how can they be used to address the challenges we see in the world today? 

Well, this isn’t something you can legislate. You can’t tell politicians to force people to imagine someone else’s life. The real audience for this work is advocacy organizations like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or the International Rescue Committee (IRC), because they’re already doing it. They use storytelling and humanizing narratives in their campaigns all the time. 

It’s really hard, though, because we’re living in what people call the attention economy, which is driven by social media. Everything is about visibility, clicks, and headlines, and there’s always a new crisis. It becomes difficult for people to hold on to empathy for more than a moment because the focus is constantly shifting from one story to another. Even if a big influencer were to advocate for refugees or displaced communities, another could just as easily come along and dehumanize them or spread misinformation that undermines this. So it becomes this constant tug-of-war between empathy and fear, between humanizing and othering. 

With that being said, I think social media can also be used as a really powerful tool for sharing stories and reaching people who might not otherwise engage with these issues. It gives us a space to humanize experiences and make them visible at a scale that wasn’t possible before. The challenge is figuring out how to use these platforms not just to get attention for a moment, but to actually build connection and understanding that last beyond a single news cycle.

How does this translate into policy? 

Ultimately, I do think that public opinion matters for policy. The way people feel about migration or refugees — whether they see them as part of the community or as outsiders — shapes which policies are politically possible. And today, public opinion is shaped more than ever by social media. It’s not just voters who are influenced by online narratives; policymakers and donors are too. That’s why empathy and communication are central to policymaking, as social media now plays such a major role in shaping how both the public and those in power think and respond.

Can you tell me more about your work at the Immigration Policy Lab? 

I just joined as Faculty Co-Director and am currently leading two key projects focused on migration and development, particularly in the Global South. 

One major area is climate migration, understanding how environmental shocks affect migration decisions. The people most vulnerable to climate change are often the poorest. We’re trying to understand how they perceive risk, what strategies they use to survive, and when migration becomes an option. We’re currently raising funds to collect data in places like Colombia and rural Guatemala.

Another big project focuses on return migration, looking at people who have been expelled or deported, as well as those who self-deport. We’re building partnerships with organizations like Mercy Corps and the IRC to study how they reintegrate, what challenges they face, and whether existing programs are actually helping.

What have been some of the most challenging aspects of conducting research in this field, and how did you overcome them?

I would say interest and funding. Studying migrant integration is not popular these days; it feels like everyone is obsessed with AI or how technology can solve problems. That also creates challenges with funding and resources, especially from federal sources, because projects like ours require long-term fieldwork and collaboration, which are expensive and time-intensive. 

That said, I’ve been really fortunate to find a strong community and support system here at Stanford and at CDDRL. Being part of this environment has enabled me to connect with others who care about these issues and to find the resources needed to keep the work going.
 

What gaps still need to be addressed in this research, and what do you hope to study in the future?

I think a big gap that hasn’t been studied enough is who actually engages with empathy-based initiatives in the first place. We know that when people are asked to imagine themselves in someone else’s shoes, they become more open and inclusive. But who is voluntarily clicking on those websites or reading those stories? Probably people who already care. That’s a limitation, because it means we might just be reinforcing empathy among those who already have it.

What I’d love to study next is how to reach people who don’t. People who avoid these stories or who hold more exclusionary views. What kinds of messages or media could reach them? Could framing, visuals, or certain messengers make a difference? Understanding that is crucial for figuring out how to scale empathy beyond its existing audiences.

If you had to give one piece of advice to students who want to get involved in this kind of research, what would it be?

Take my class next quarter! We talk about all sorts of issues related to migration and inclusion. But seriously, get involved early. Try to work as a research assistant, even on small projects. That’s how I got started, by working under a professor who brought me into areas and questions I didn’t think I’d be interested in. Those experiences can completely change your perspective and open doors you didn’t even know existed.

Lastly, what book would you recommend for students interested in a research career in your field?

I’ve heard very good things about The Truth About Immigration by Zeke Hernandez, which is more from an economist’s perspective, and I love Rafaela Dancygier’s Dilemmas of Inclusion, which looks at the challenges left-wing parties face in Europe. They’re the parties of inclusion, but they also have to navigate tensions when the groups they’re including hold more conservative social values. It’s a really interesting read for understanding how inclusion plays out in democratic politics.

Adida’s work highlights how understanding the human side of migration through empathy and perspective-taking can lead to more inclusive policies and stronger communities worldwide.

Argument & Key Findings

Data & Methods

OutRush is based on four waves of surveys. The report focuses on wave 4, conducted between July and November 2024. The nearly 8600 emigrants surveyed in wave 4 include prior respondents (i.e., to waves 1-3), those recruited through OutRush media partners like Telegram news channels, recipients of the link from friends, those who found the survey through social media, and emigrants who left Russia during an earlier period (2014-21). The survey work is complemented by interviews that add context and capture migrants’ lived experiences. Although survey respondents are not drawn at random, the study population is likely to be representative because Russian migrants across various demographics, such as gender, age, and education level, use social media or consume Telegram news.

The bulk of the report dives into specific issues:

Integration Into and Work Within Host Countries: One of the most comprehensive sections presents data on respondents’ experiences integrating socially, occupationally, and otherwise. Emigrants’ economic stability has improved, and reports of discrimination have declined. Meanwhile, legal instability, such as difficulties opening bank accounts or being granted asylum, has improved slightly but remains a significant concern. By contrast, trust in their host country governments has declined, mainly driven by concerns about political persecution and bureaucratic hurdles. Yet, processes of social integration appear to be increasingly successful: majorities of respondents are learning local languages, have a high level of trust in the host population, are engaged in local politics, and have three or more local acquaintances, despite primarily socializing with other Russians. Finally, the subjective well-being of migrants is improving.

In terms of occupation, a plurality of migrants work in information technology, about a fifth work in the sphere of arts, education, and media, and a small but growing number plan to start their own businesses. Emigrants have found entrepreneurship challenging due to factors such as high taxes and complex bureaucracies in their host countries.
 

Secondary Migration: Perhaps one of the most overlooked aspects of migration is its transient nature, as many individuals do not remain in the place where they first arrive. Indeed, over a fifth of respondents changed their country of residence, and nearly a third plan to do so within the next year. This is largely driven by discrimination or legal instability in their initial host countries. Serbia has become a key destination for secondary migration, attracting about a fifth of those who have left their initial destination. Much of this has to do with Serbia’s low levels of discrimination and its growing Russian-speaking community. 

Connections With and Plans to Return to Russia: Very few emigrants have returned or plan to do so in the short term. Of those who consider returning a possibility, doing so would largely depend upon military conscription becoming less likely and democratic reforms becoming more likely; as it stands, however, both of these scenarios appear quite distant. More than four out of five emigrants actively consume independent Russian media and stay in regular contact with their friends and family back home. Meanwhile, around two out of five consume English news, and about a quarter consume local media. Only a very small number are totally disengaged from politics or rely on Russian state propaganda. Yet large numbers of migrants fear persecution from the Russian government and their host states alike, especially given that many of their new homes are autocracies.

Political and Civic Activism: There continues to be high political interest in Russia. More than two out of five emigrants cast votes in the 2024 Russian presidential election. At the same time, overt political activism has declined, perhaps because of migrants’ perceived need to assimilate or because other challenges of migrant life have taken precedence. As mentioned above, large numbers are interested in the politics of their host countries. One of the most interesting findings concerns the large number of migrants — around three out of five — who are interested in the climate crisis. Their global focus overshadows their focus on environmental challenges specific to Russia or their host countries.

Implications & Prescriptions

The authors draw a number of conclusions from their interpretation of the survey data. Most centrally, Russian migrants are likely to remain in their host countries, that is, unless Russia undertakes meaningful change to its militarized, authoritarian status quo. As Russia pays a steep price, host countries gain considerably from one of the largest brain drains since the fall of the Soviet Union. At the same time, the authors call on host countries to rectify sources of legal and economic instability, including simplifying the process of legal emigration, encouraging entrepreneurship, and helping workers adapt to new labor markets. These prescriptions would not only ease the hardships faced by migrants but also create benefits for host countries.

This eight-week multimedia course taught by The World House Project's Clayborne Carson and Johnny Mack will explore the enduring significance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of a global community where all people may realize the ideals of human rights in their lives. Its goal is to give students a comprehensive understanding of the critical concepts of human rights, nonviolence, and the “world house” and practical skills, action tools, and strategies for resolving conflict from the local to the global community.

Through discussions of historic social justice movements, the course will challenge students to analyze the complex interrelationships of ideas such as universal rights and national sovereignty, civil disobedience, and the rule of law. It will offer critical reviews of their meaning and application to social change and social movement episodes throughout history and the new challenges emerging in this century, including threats to democracy and the rise of autocracy. The course will use digital, multimedia resources to reveal the religious and philosophical roots of human rights and struggles to overcome colonialism and authoritarian government and secure liberation from oppression through violence and nonviolent resistance strategies.

The readings and discussions will focus on history, theory, and the intersection of the current practice of nonviolence and human rights. Course readings will include Martin Luther King Jr.’s Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, Stephen Hopgood’s The Endtimes of Human Rights, Upendra Baxi’s The Future of Human Rights, and Johan Galtung’s Human Rights in Another Key.

Stanford Continuing Studies has lowered the tuition for this course as part of our mission to increase access to education around diversity, equity, inclusion, and issues related to social justice and participatory democracy.