Decolonising Knowledge Production in the Field of Refugee Education: Unsettling the Ontology and Epistemology of a Nascent Field

• In Event: Beyond Education Emergencies: towards an ideology of struggle

Proposal

This study offers a critical examination of the knowledge production landscape in refugee education, revealing how it continues to be shaped by colonial legacies and dominated by Global North (GN) perspectives. By analyzing academic literature in both English and Arabic, the study explores the power dynamics, economic interests, and ideological influences that perpetuate disparities between the Global North and Global South (GS) in this field. Despite significant growth and diversification in refugee education research over the past two decades, the findings underscore a persistent inequality in authorship, geographic focus, and epistemological frameworks.
The field has expanded notably, particularly in response to high-profile refugee crises such as the Syrian conflict, which has increased international funding and attention. However, this growth has not addressed deep-seated inequalities that have historically characterized forced migration studies. The analysis reveals that GN scholars and institutions dominate the research landscape, with 86% of single-authored English-language articles produced by GN researchers, even when studying GS contexts. This dominance reflects an extractive model of knowledge production, where GN perspectives are prioritized while GS voices and expertise are marginalized.
Ontologically and epistemologically, GN literature on refugee education often aligns with governmental policies in GN countries, emphasizing technical and short-term solutions like language acquisition and classroom integration. This approach tends to overlook broader socio-political issues such as racism and cultural diversity, focusing instead on assimilation into host systems. In contrast, GN research on refugees in the GS adopts a humanitarian, apolitical stance, concentrating on immediate educational access and psychological support, frequently portraying refugees as passive recipients of aid rather than active agents with long-term educational and social aspirations.
Geographically and institutionally, the research reveals significant imbalances. Despite 75% of the world’s refugees residing in low- and middle-income countries, nearly half of the studies analyzed focus on GN contexts. This discrepancy is mirrored in authorship patterns, with GN scholars overwhelmingly conducting research in the GS without meaningful collaboration with local scholars. Arabic-language research, while concentrated on the GS, remains disconnected from global discourse due to language barriers and limited international engagement. This literature often emphasizes psychological needs and trauma, reinforcing a victim narrative and neglecting systemic and cultural factors.
The study also highlights the influence of Western humanitarianism on the discourse, with GN literature prioritizing integration and technical approaches, while GS studies focus on emergency education and psychological support. This narrow focus results in research that is overly technical and disconnected from the broader political and cultural contexts shaping refugee experiences.
Citation trends further underscore GN epistemic dominance, with the top-cited articles predominantly authored by GN scholars and institutions. This concentration of scholarly recognition reinforces existing power imbalances and marginalizes GS contributions. The report calls for a fundamental shift towards a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of refugee education. It urges scholars to challenge entrenched power dynamics, address inequities, and engage in reshaping the discourse to better reflect the needs and aspirations of refugee communities. This transformation is crucial for both advancing academic integrity and fulfilling ethical obligations in the field.

Authors

• Cathrine Brun, Centre for Lebanese Studies

• Maha shuayb, Centre for Lebanese Studies

• Cyrine Saab