2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(1) identifies moments in time (whether in the post-World War II period or in today’s refugee crises) when statelessness as a concept has been constructed in a way that may not align with the lived experience of the stateless, and she advises scholars that these particular models of statelessness may not correspond with to the experiences of some populations living in certain types of post-colonial states. In the case of both slavery and statelessness, she sees similar outcomes of a ‘racialised debasement of citizenship’ and similar opportunities for scholarly engagement. The work of Dr Katarina Schwarz and Dr Jean Allain addresses a different sort of disconnect: between how slavery is addressed in international conventions versus in domestic law. Although both freedom from forced labour and access to citizenship are built into various international conventions to which states have committed, domestic legislation can be inconsistent at the states’ level, leaving gaps in full protection from these human rights abuses. In the case of slavery, all 193 United Nations member states are obliged to prohibit slavery under customary international law. Despite this and other shared commitments, domestic implementation remains scattered and inconsistent among these member states as Schwarz and Allain found when they undertook the creation of their Antislavery in Domestic Legislation database. This database, which launched early in 2020, analyses thousands of provisions in over 1000 domestic statutes. In their contribution to this symposium, they analyse some findings from the database that illustrate the gaps in legislation and suggest how this product may support anti-slavery work. In identifying regional legislative patterns and areas for effective advocacy based in evidence, anti-slavery researchers can push for greater accountability among states and more consistent implementation of international commitments at the domestic level. While significant comparative legal research is enriching the discussion on slavery, those working as advocates for the stateless or enslaved, and those who examine research on the same, face common challenges in their work. How does one collect data about, or initiate outreach to, a population rendered in various ways largely ‘invisible’ to states? How does a researcher give a voice and agency to populations that share a likelihood of living in conditions that render them fearful of state authorities? How can a research community become part of the resources of the anti-slavery work in their communities? Dr Alison Gardner and Dr Phil Northall describe a local approach — based in the ‘place’ in which one finds slavery, giving agency to multiple stakeholders and including the lived experiences of survivors — that was tested in Nottinghamshire in the UK. They suggest that a place-based approach to research and advocacy in stateless communities may face similar obstacles (for example, tensions between national policy and local implementation causing fear of legal action such as deportation). They also suggest, however, that statelessness researchers may find similar advantages to this approach, such as the possibility of engagement across a full community and development of a shared research agenda with wide investment. Where might slavery research fully intersect with statelessness in a shared research agenda? Dr Davina Durgana focuses on challenges of measurement and some possible tools to count hidden populations based on her experience as Report Co-Author and Senior Statistician of the Global Slavery Index. Effective measurement, so crucial to evidence-based advocacy and policy making to end slavery, has similar utility for work on statelessness. Durgana focuses on two 139