The Landscape of Refugee Education Research: Complicit Scholarship in Violence, Oppression and Imperialism

This blog was co-written by Professors Maha Shuayb and Cathrine Brun, Centre for Lebanese Studies. They would like to express their heartfelt gratitude to Cyrine Saab for her invaluable contributions to this study, whose insights and expertise greatly enriched the research.

In this blog, we summarise insights from the research programme Decolonising Knowledge Systems. Specifically, we focus on the field of education of forced migrants and the rise and quick growth of the field over the past 20 years. 

We sought to uncover patterns in knowledge production, examining the role of colonial legacies and how they manifest in the type of knowledge produced — and how the knowledge is produced. To achieve this, we analysed 779 English-language articles and 91 Arabic-language articles focused on refugee education, utilising the SCOPUS and ERIC databases for the English articles and the SHAMAA database for the Arabic articles.

Below, we present the main features of the knowledge produced in the field of forced displacement, namely: the depoliticisation (the conscious act of removing the political dimension), the influence of Western humanitarianism, and unequal voices between the Global North and the Global South.

The Depoliticised Scholarship on Refugee Education

One of the most critical issues uncovered by this study is the failure to engage with the political nature of refugee education. While much of the research in this field is framed as neutral and humanitarian, and takes place at micro- and meso levels, it is, in fact, deeply political. Refugee education is inextricably linked to broader geopolitical contexts, as most displacement situations are the result of political conflicts and imperialism. However, the dominant research, both in English and Arabic, tends to focus on technical solutions — such as language acquisition and classroom integration — without addressing the root causes of displacement or the long-term political and social outcomes of refugee education.

The vulgarity of the field's depoliticised stance was strikingly evident as we conducted this study in the shadow of the Israeli genocide in Palestine. While mass killings of civilians unfolded, the silencing and suppression of academic freedom in many parts of the world and the limited engagement of scholars from the field, particularly in the Global North, exposed a deepening divide in knowledge regimes that conceals different types of politics. These politics fall on a spectrum: some position themselves as ‘positivists’, or researchers who see their work as “reporting” what they are observing in the field; for example what their classroom observation might capture. Others position their scholarship in the politics of liberation, where structure and power is always at the forefront. 

This ongoing divide is a testament to the need for further exploration into why certain kinds of knowledge dominate research on refugees, displacement and education.

The Influence of Western Humanitarianism

The depoliticised nature of the field of refugee education is partly the result of being shaped by the prevalence of Western humanitarianism. Much of the literature produced by Global North scholars frames refugee education through the lens of emergency and short-term interventions, particularly in Global South contexts. This results in research that is overly technical, focusing on short-term solutions, such as literacy programmes and trauma interventions, without engaging with the broader, systemic issues that affect refugee education. 

Unequal Voices: Who is Really Driving the Narrative?

The study also revealed significant imbalances in the production of refugee education research. Of the 829 peer reviewed articles analysed, 86% of single-authored articles in English were produced by scholars from the Global North. This pattern persists even when research is conducted in Global South contexts, leading to an extractive model of knowledge production where Global North scholars’ perspectives dominate.

This inequality in knowledge production is partly due to the skewed access to research funding, with scholars from the Global North dominating the field. Moreover, within the current system of knowledge production, where academic peer reviewed publications are presented as the most valid form of knowledge, voices from the Global South are marginalized, even though the majority of the world’s refugees reside in Global South countries. While refugee education studies is a nascent field, it has not managed to break free from the historical Global North hegemony of knowledge production.

The dominance of Global North scholars is further reflected in citation trends. All of the top 20 most-cited articles in the field are authored by scholars affiliated with Global North institutions. 91% of the articles citing these works are also from Global North institutions. This concentration of scholarly recognition and influence reinforces existing power imbalances, privileging Global North perspectives while undervaluing the contributions of Global South scholars.

The Need for Relational Ethics and Solidarity

As scholars engaged in this field, we are pressured more than ever before to question our own scholarship: Are we merely bystanders reporting selected segments of the picture and fitting it into our academic papers and publications while overlooking the fuller picture of colonialism and genocide? 

Dr. Mario Novelli, Professor in Political Economy of Education at University of Sussex (BAICE conference, 2024), articulated this reality by drawing on his experiences in Colombia, where local NGOs declined to engage with an EU grant intended for education and relief, stating: “The US is sending millions of dollars in money to support the armed conflict killing thousand and the EU is sending humanitarian relief to pick up the dead bodies. We don't want to be the one picking up the dead bodies”.

The current state of politics in the world demands from us to critically examine our roles in the production of knowledge, what knowledge we produce but also what we do with this knowledge. The field of refugee education has developed within an ecosystem comprising academic institutions, funding bodies, policymakers, and researchers. As shown in our research, this ecosystem often perpetuates power asymmetries between the Global North and Global South, contributing to the marginalisation of Global South voices, and reinforcing colonial legacies in knowledge production as well as in reinforcing colonialism. To dismantle these entrenched power dynamics, the adoption of relational ethics grounded in solidarity with refugee communities is essential. This necessitates a re-evaluation of collaborative practices, the selection of partners, and the ethical and political imperatives guiding research endeavours. 

We call on scholars to move beyond mere compliance with existing frameworks and to actively engage in reshaping the discourse and power relations within the field.

To learn more about the research findings, read the report: Decolonising Knowledge Production in the Field of Refugee Education: Unsettling the Ontology and Epistemology of a Nascent Field

Dr. Maha Shuayb is the British Academy Bilateral Chair Education in Conflict at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge and the Centre for Lebanese Studies and the co-director of the Centre for Lebanese Studies since 2012. Maha’s research focuses on the sociology and politics of education, particularly equity and equality in education, and the implications of inequalities on marginalized groups.

Dr. Cathrine Brun is co-director at the Centre for Lebanese Studies (CLS). As a human geographer, her research-interests concern the ethics, politics and philosophy of humanitarianism through the lens of forced migration and conflict, young people, education, housing and home.

The views expressed in this blog are the authors' own.