TY - JOUR
AU - Omata, Naohiko
AB - Summary: Drawing upon my fieldwork experience in East Africa, this article sheds light on emerging phenomena of ‘over-researched’ and ‘under-researched’ refugee populations. Over the past years, I have increasingly encountered ‘research fatigue’ amongst certain groups of refugees who have undergone frequent studies by numerous researchers. On the other hand, I have also noticed disappointment and frustration from groups of refugees who feel that they remain ‘under-studied’ despite their hidden challenges and vulnerabilities. While the phenomena of over- and under-research are not new, few studies are done to compare the under- and over-studied refugees and to investigate the causes and consequences of the polarisation of research interest amongst refugee populations. This article thus aims to narrow these gaps and also explores these phenomena in relation to accountability and ethics related to forced migration scholarship. I also present practical actions toward improvement of this research polarisation. Drawing upon my extensive fieldwork experience in East Africa, this article sheds light on the emerging phenomena of ‘over-researched’ and ‘under-researched’ refugee populations. While these phenomena are not new, little research has been done to investigate the causes and consequences of such polarization in research interests across refugee populations. This article aims to narrow these gaps and also discusses these phenomena through the lenses of accountability and ethics related to research in forced migration. Since 2012, I have been leading fieldwork for a research project focusing on refugees’ economic lives and conducting data collection with refugees in both camp and urban contexts in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia. Increasingly over recent years, I have noticed more frequent complaints or mentions of so-called ‘research fatigue’ amongst certain groups of refugees who have had numerous academics, aid organizations, students, and journalists visiting and ‘researching’ them. On the other hand, I have equally encountered disappointment, concerns, and frustration from several groups of refugees who feel that they remain under-studied and that their voices are less heard in global arenas despite their hidden challenges and vulnerabilities. I argue that the existing polarization between over- and under-studied groups is largely due to an imperative for researchers and academic institutions to pursue policy-driven studies, a trend that is linked to both funding and recognition in the current academic environment. Additionally, I contend that research with refugee populations which is driven primarily by policy interests is more likely to result in unethical research practices and to undermine accountability of forced migration researchers to refugee populations. By analysing specific case studies of over- and under-researched refugee populations in East Africa, this article investigates the underlying causes behind the emergence of these phenomena and discusses what, if anything, can be done to mitigate or improve the current situations. If these issues are left unaddressed, the overall trust in and credibility of the research community among refugee populations could be significantly undermined in future. It should be noted from the outset that the intention of this article is by no means to accuse other researchers and institutions of engaging intentionally in harmful research practices. Undoubtedly, I myself have also been contributing to the phenomena of both over- and under-researched refugee populations by virtue of interacting with particular groups for my research work. Rather, the aim of the article is to draw wider attention to these issues and to provide a forum for discussion amongst academics, practitioners, students and others who work with forced migrants. In so doing, I am also keen to better understand the implications of over- and under-studying different groups of refugees for our research ethics and accountability in the current environment. This article is structured as follows. First, I will briefly discuss the literature on under- and over-studied refugees as a phenomenon as well as concepts of research accountability and ethics in humanitarian contexts. Second, I will present findings from my research with over- and under-researched refugee populations in East Africa and highlight the frustration, fatigue, mistrust, and despair felt by these groups of refugees. Next, I will analyse some possible causes and consequences of such polarization of research interests. Finally, I will present several practical suggestions for improvement. Under- and over-studying refugees: tensions with ethics and accountability The world currently has a population of 26 million refugees, the highest number in contemporary history (UNHCR 2019). With the unprecedented scale of forced displacement, refugee issues draw considerable global attention and the field of forced migration research has been growing accordingly. However, not all refugee groups receive equal attention from researchers. Some refugee populations attract a larger proportion of interest from academics and students, while other groups of displaced people receive much less. The causes of such disparity in interest across different groups or nationalities of refugees can be attributed to a number of factors. Most crucially, one can point to the influence of an international refugee regime, broadly defined as a conglomerate of key players—for instance, UN agencies and wealthier state governments—who have disproportionate power in determining responses to refugee crises and setting policies and agendas. While some academics are calling for the decolonization of forced migration studies as an imperative (Al-Hardan 2014; Pacitto and Fiddian-Qasmiyeh 2013), the current landscape of scholarship is heavily skewed towards the interest of the politically powerful (see Gatrell 2017; Bloch 2020). The global North shapes dominant research themes, primarily through research funding from governments and international organizations, which can lead to a production of knowledge focused on the particular interests and concerns of certain influential states. The research funding landscape can therefore generate a disproportionate impact on the setting of research agendas, the aim of research, and of course the target populations (Bloch 2020). For instance, in the case of the UK, any research funded by DFID (the Department for International Development) must demonstrate its relevance to current institutional interests and lay out how research findings will be able to inform evidence-based policymaking (DFID 2016). As a result, the design and scope of academic studies are in fact shaped by their funders’ institutional interests and ‘policy relevance’ from the perspective of the global North (Bakewell 2008). As the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration warns, the majority of epistemic and ontological communities concerned with forced migration are increasingly produced and reproduced by powerful actors in the global North (IASFM 2019). Crucially, the establishment of under-and over-studied refugees—driven by policy interests—has the potential to lead to tensions and conflicts around research ethics and accountability, which take on special importance for forced migration scholars. First, exclusively following so-called ‘hot’ topics (Sukarieh and Tannock 2012) can skew the scope and priority of researchers’ accountability in refugee studies. According to Ballinger (2012), accountability in social research (involving human beings) can be understood as the obligations the researcher has to the various stakeholders in the research process and any consequences resulting from the research. Key stakeholders commonly include research participants, funding bodies, employing organizations, colleagues, and wider society. In forced migration studies, the primary group to whom researchers are held accountable should be ‘refugee participants’ rather than powerful states or funders in the global North (see Leaning 2001; Krause 2017). The famous admonition made by David Turton (2003: 16) articulates this point: We can surely agree that there is no justification for studying, and attempting to understand, the causes of human suffering if the purpose of one’s study is not, ultimately, to find ways of relieving and preventing that suffering. This clearly applies to the study of forced migration, given the scale of the human problems involved and the level of suffering that must be observed, documented and analysed by anyone wishing to carry out research in this field. In addition, by prioritizing the interests of the international refugee regime, a tension arises within the moral and ethical positioning of researchers in humanitarian contexts (Leaning 2001). In social research, some of the basic ethical requirements of researchers include: to explain about the aims and limitations of research; to describe how the research and data will be used; and to provide feedback and/or reports to participants about the consequences of their participation and research (Ballinger 2012; Israel 2015; Pittaway et al. 2010; Krause 2017). However, ethics in humanitarian studies should not be limited only to meeting these obligations above but also should include a way to account for the interests, issues, views and preferences of those affected by the conflicts, disasters or human rights violations (see Stockton 2005; Davis 2007). This is not a new idea for forced migration research; while the principle of ‘do no harm’ (Anderson 1999) is widely recognized as an important ethical starting point, a number of scholars working on issues of forced displacement have argued that researchers should be encouraged to go ‘beyond do no harm’ to ensure that they ‘do good’ through research (Hammett et al. 2019; Hugman et al. 2011; Mackenzie et al. 2007; Goodhand 2000). For instance, Pittaway and others (2010: 241–2) note the following: Ethics is not simply a matter of following rules and procedures, as is often the focus of research ethics … The significance for research with refugee and IDP [internally displaced persons] communities is that ethics cannot be limited to fulfilling the formal requirements of sponsoring institutions. Nor can it be confined to notions of ‘do no harm’. Ethics should be extended to promoting the interests and well-being of extremely vulnerable research subjects, in ways that make sense for the research subjects, as well as for researchers and their academic institutions and professional bodies. However, when selection of research themes and target populations becomes more policy-driven, researchers can be more at risk of violating fundamental ethics and accountability principles. Since the central purpose of such studies inherently prioritize the interests of rich states or funding bodies, the aim of research to explicitly reduce suffering may become secondary. Put another way, the increasing phenomena of over-studying and under-studying certain refugee groups should be understood as a particular challenge that can have significant and alarming implications for research ethics and accountability in refugee studies. To illustrate some of the consequences of this, in the subsequent sections I will highlight the growing frustration, fatigue, and mistrust towards researchers amongst refugees within both over-studied and under-studied groups. Over-researched refugee groups It is common knowledge in the field of forced migration that certain refugee populations are more frequently researched by academics, aid organizations, students, and to a certain extent by journalists. In the absence of concrete benefits from these interactions—as well as the lack of any follow-up after research has taken place—many over-studied groups are increasingly uninterested in or even mistrustful of researchers. Refugees in Kakuma refugee camp, Kenya A common example of an over-researched refugee population is Kakuma refugee camp, located in the north-west of Kenya. Established in 1991, the camp is in a protracted situation, where approximately 190,000 camp residents now reside. Between 2016 and 2019, I conducted several phases of research in the camp. Before beginning fieldwork in late 2016, I organized a series of initial courtesy meetings with members of the camp representation body. The primary purpose of these meetings was to introduce myself and our research, ideally hoping to obtain cooperation and participation in our study. At one of my first meetings with the representatives, after I explained the scope of the study and the project’s principle of no financial compensation for research participants, some refugees asked me what benefit our research would bring to them if I was not financially compensating them. I explained that this research project would aim to generate a better understanding of refugees in Kakuma amongst external stakeholders and ultimately aim to contribute to informing better policies for the refugees in the camp. As soon as I finished my reply, one of the Somali elders stood up and, pointing his finger at me, commented in his fluent English: I have been living in this refugee camp since 2008 and received so many researchers like you. They all mentioned the same thing you just said but nothing has changed. Each time, we cooperated with researchers but we have not seen any improvement in our life. I cannot trust what you said. Following this response, I also discussed with some of our refugee research assistants in the camp. They echoed the prevailing sentiment of ‘research fatigue’ amongst camp residents. One of them told me: Kakuma camp has been researched by so many researchers. Even in 2016, there are at least four or five surveys done. Now refugees are tired of research, especially those in Kakuma for a long time. They don’t see any benefits [in research]. This position is understandable. Right before our own research took place, an international organization conducted a large-scale study across Kakuma camp. During my stay in Kakuma camp between October and December 2016, I met at least two research teams dispatched from UN agencies, two doctoral students from the global North, one consultant company, and one scholar from a university in a European country. They were all conducting studies of varying sizes inside the camp, at the same time as us. In 2019, I returned to Kenya for another round of research and interviewed a senior UNHCR staff member, who felt that the ‘over-researching’ of Kakuma camp had only escalated since 2016. This was driven partly by the fact that Kakuma camp received global attention after it was presented as a prospective site for business investment by the international community (for instance, see International Finance Corporation 2018). Due to increasing interest, the camp had attracted an even larger number of visitors over the past few years—including journalists, donor government officials, and private companies, in addition to researchers and students. The UNHCR staff member also noted that this trend does not seem likely to decrease as multiple studies on Kakuma camp were already planned through the end of 2019. During my fieldwork in 2019, I asked several refugee community leaders from different nationalities about their experiences of working with researchers, particularly from the global North. Due to extensive networks and strong command of English, many of these refugees had assisted numerous researchers over the years as translators and community mobilizers. Across all nationalities, refugees reiterated the lack of feedback or follow-up from research as one of the major reasons for the prevailing fatigue and frustration about research amongst camp residents. One female South Sudanese refugee who has lived in the camp since 2005 told me: We feel so bad when we don’t hear from them [after research] … When feedback is given, we feel our efforts are rewarded. When no feedback, I feel our time was wasted. I then asked her whether she attempted to communicate with these researchers about the outcomes of the research, but she replied, ‘Very few researchers leave contact information. So it is almost impossible for us to track them after they leave the field.’ In a different interview, a Burundian refugee who worked for years as a research assistant noted that often researchers do not adequately explain the limitations of academic studies, which contributes to high expectations about the impact of research amongst camp residents. When expectations are left unmet, sentiments turn to disappointment, frustration and mistrust towards researchers. Eritrean refugees in Addis Ababa I encountered similar issues during fieldwork in Addis Ababa in late 2018. Particularly amongst some groups of young Eritrean refugees, research fatigue was a common issue. According to an international staff member of a refugee-supporting NGO, ‘Eritrean refugees are over-interviewed by journalists and researchers’. Many of these researchers were interested in investigating these refugees’ desire to move to the global North via Mediterranean migration routes—a prominent topic within the international refugee regime, and Addis Ababa is considered one of the major migration transit routes. The programme officer of another international NGO in Addis Ababa warned us that refugees had developed an ‘allergy’ to research. This NGO has itself done a large-scale study on refugees’ livelihood challenges and other issues in 2017 but it also experienced unwillingness from many refugees to participate in their study. In the programme officer’s opinion, this negative sentiment stems from experiences of being asked the same or similar questions repeatedly without seeing any positive changes. Thanks to facilitation support from aid agencies, we managed to conduct several interviews and focus group discussions with Eritrean refugee youth. However, a sense of lack of interest and suspicion was visible during the interviews, which of course affected the candidness of responses and engagement. For instance, during one focus group discussion with six Eritrean refugees, one male in his late twenties replied to my question about how he sees his future by saying: We have no vision in Ethiopia. Here no work, not productive life. We have no intention to return to Eritrea … This is why many wish to go to Western countries. We know how dangerous it [Mediterranean migration] is but still some are thinking of it from despair. After a short pause, he continued, ‘I explained this to others again and again but nothing happened. Previous research did not help us.’ According to him, he had been interviewed several times by ‘white people’ without knowing their detailed background. None of these visitors left contact information with him and he was thus left uninformed about the ways in which collected interviews might be used or in which kind of dissemination channels. Since they did not contact him after the interviews, he was not even sure whether his interviews were actually used or not. With support from UNHCR and the Ethiopian government, we also organized an introductory meeting with our target populations of Eritrean and Somali refugee community representatives. Again, at this meeting, fatigue relating to over-research as well as overall suspicion about our study was evident early on. When we asked for support to facilitate our survey data collection, most of the Eritrean refugee representatives informed us, ‘Many researchers came to do research here and it was done over and over. But we saw no change for us. We don’t see any point of helping another research.’ These representatives explicitly requested us to provide significant financial compensation for those who agreed to participate in interviews; otherwise, they said that they would not be able to convince fellow refugees to participate in our study. Under-researched refugee groups In stark contrast to the phenomenon of ‘over-researched’ refugees, I have also come across several groups of refugees in my work who considered themselves ‘under-researched’ or even neglected. These groups are often given less attention by researchers and policymakers for a variety of reasons, and their presence is significantly less visible in global arenas. Minority refugees One such group that I have encountered is so-called ‘minority’ refugees in Addis Ababa—by which I mean nationalities which represent only a small fraction of the overall refugee population in UNHCR official statistics. At the inception of our fieldwork in Addis Ababa in August 2018, with support from UNHCR, we organized an introductory meeting with representatives from refugee communities of different nationalities to describe the aim of our study and to request their participation. Given the limited time and financial resources of our project, I explained that we focused on the nationalities which make up significant proportions of the refugee population—namely Eritrean and Somali refugees, in the case of Addis Ababa. After I explained our main ‘target’ refugee nationalities, a representative of Burundian refugees approached me and requested to be included in our study. According to him, while many journalists or researchers interviewed major groups of refugees, particularly Eritrean refugees, the minority groups such as those from the Great Lakes region had been almost entirely excluded from the previous research. He emphatically told me, ‘We want to be part of your study and we are happy to cooperate with you. I want you to hear our challenges.’ However, due to the reasons mentioned above, we had to keep the Burundian refugee group out of our researched populations despite their keen interest in joining our study. When I explained this to him, his disappointment and despair was very visible. This was a very clear contrast with Eritrean refugees in Addis Ababa who have been inundated by and tired of researchers and media. Importantly, refugees amongst less represented nationalities may be indeed be particularly vulnerable. In Addis Ababa, a staff member at an international NGO highlighted this point: In Addis Ababa, while there are many government restrictions on refugees, those with language capacity and networks can navigate through these challenges. Some Eritrean refugees are well-equipped with these assets and mitigate the restrictions imposed on them. They also have similar features like Ethiopians. But those who do not have such advantages, for example, refugees from the Great Lakes area such as Burundi and Congo, will face more difficulties in Addis. Similar remarks were made by employees of other refugee-supporting organizations in Addis Ababa. Given limited financial and human resources, nevertheless, many organizations cannot always afford to pay detailed attention to the specific situations of minority refugee groups, even if they want to include them as beneficiaries. Elderly refugees and refugees with disabilities Similar frustrations of being excluded from research were apparent in focus group discussions with refugees who were living with disabilities and/or were elderly in Kampala, Uganda’s capital. Both of these groups had formed associations that are officially registered with local government authorities. For instance, older refugees in Kampala founded the Association of Refugee Elderly in Uganda (AREU) in 2011, which had grown to 436 registered members as of 2018, with the average age of members at 65 years old. Those with disabilities in Kampala organized themselves as the Association of Refugees Living with Disability (ARD) in 2010, which grew from an initial 80 members to over 350 registered members at the end of 2017. Members of both associations consist of refugees from multiple countries, including Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Burundi, Rwanda and Eritrea. There is some overlap between the memberships of these organizations, in that some individuals are members of both. While our interviews with executive members of both associations took place separately, both mentioned the lack of attention from refugee-supporting organizations as the main reason for establishing their own institutions. One of the executive members of ARD expressed: In Kampala, there are UNHCR, InterAid [UNHCR’s implementing partner NGO], and other NGOs but they do not have any support programmes specifically designed for those with disabilities … we have been feeling marginalized. So we decided to come together to assist each other. In a similar vein, the executive director of AREU also described the situation of elderly refugees as ‘neglected and rejected’ by refugee-supporting agencies (similarly, see also Bolzman 2014 and Mirza 2014). Members of both associations emphasized how difficult it is to build livelihoods suited to them in Kampala’s context. As the literature shows, livelihood opportunities are generally limited for refugees, regardless of whether they reside in camps or urban areas. However, those living in urban areas must compete for livelihood opportunities against non-disabled workers in open labour markets (see Mirza 2014; Women’s Refugee Commission 2008). Although Uganda is known for its so-called ‘Self-Reliance Strategy’, which aims to support the ability of refugees to meet their own basic needs, refugees living in Kampala receive very little institutional assistance. A Rwandan female refugee living with a disability commented: We have very limited [livelihood] options. We cannot do hawking [due to disabilities]. I cook mandazi [a fried dough snack] and send my children to sell on behalf of me. We are forced to depend on our relatives or church for survival. While moving to refugee camps can enable access to additional humanitarian support, both elderly refugees and those with disabilities noted that living conditions in rural and remote camps are even more difficult for them as they are not able to participate in labour-intensive livelihoods such as agriculture, which is a central pillar of Uganda’s Self-Reliance Strategy in camps. During interviews, members of both groups also mentioned a deep sense of guilt for not being able to make financial contributions to their household, due to physical and/or mental disabilities. In some cases, especially amongst elderly refugees, such situations resulted in declining authority and respect within their own households. When I asked the members of both associations whether they have questions about my research at the end of interviews, both emphatically requested me to speak on behalf of them by addressing their neglected presence and hidden challenges facing them through research. Analysis: causes and consequences of under- and over-researching refugees Prevalence of policy-driven studies Undoubtedly one of the underlying causes for the existence of under- and over-studied refugee groups is the imperative within academic research to prioritize topics with higher policy relevance. Although for different reasons, refugees living in Kakuma camp and those living in Addis Ababa are groups with particular significance for refugee policymakers. Eritrean refugees in Addis Ababa are typically seen as onward migrants to the global North via Mediterranean migration routes, while Kakuma camp has been promoted by international development agencies as an exemplar of private sector-led development in refugee contexts. As a result, refugee residents in both sites have become ‘high profile’, leading to a magnet-like effect that draws high numbers of both scholars and visitors. Also, there is a fair amount of redundancy in the research; one of the main frustrations in both groups is that they seem to be asked the same questions by different researchers repeatedly. A similar phenomenon has been observed within other over-studied refugee populations: Palestinian refugees have also told researchers that ‘Most of the research is done on topics that are famous in the universities in the West’, and ‘Topics like people get famous sometimes, and then they drop and expire, and new topics become famous and everybody focuses on them’ (Sukarieh and Tannock 2012: 501). On the other hand, experiences differ greatly for refugees who are more likely to be considered ‘policy-irrelevant’ (Bakewell 2008), such as those with disabilities or elderly refugees. While the volume of research with forced migrants has greatly increased over the past decade, the number of studies specifically addressing issues of older refugees and refugees with disabilities remains very limited (ALNAP 2018; Bolzman 2014; Mirza 2014; Landau 2007). Despite their particular challenges, their presence also receives limited attention from aid organizations. It is plausible that the absence of specific assistance programmes for these groups could be correlated to the lack of existing research on them. Another key factor of importance to policymakers is often the size of a refugee population; the significance of a particular refugee group on the political and economic agenda of the global North is often considered directly in proportion to its size (see Cole 2018). Furthermore, refugee policymakers tend to prefer quantifiable data and analysis with the capability for broad generalization of findings (Jacobsen and Landau 2003), given the demand for ‘evidence-based’ policymaking. Since it is more difficult to achieve statistically significant findings with smaller-sized refugee populations, this also affects the interest levels of policymakers. However, such considerations fail to take into account need or vulnerability of refugees, as the example of minority refugees in Addis Ababa indicates. Accordingly, the pursuit of policy-relevant groups and themes means that researchers are becoming more constrained in selection of topics or even methodologies. Constraints in the academic environment In addition, the phenomena of under- and over-researched groups must be analysed and addressed in relation to the current academic environment in which researchers find themselves. As discussed above, high policy-relevance and availability of research funding is often very closely linked in forced migration studies (Polzer and Hammond 2008). For scholars seeking funding, it is thus not easy—and perhaps even unwise—to venture into studies which are clearly outside the scope of powerful actors in the global North. Particularly for researchers in the earlier phases of their careers or those without tenure, it is difficult to secure funding for studies targeting ‘policy-irrelevant’ studies and populations. Moreover, most of those who wish to establish themselves in academic arenas—including myself—want to publish research that can be cited by wider communities, one of the most important assessment criteria for academics. For the purpose of career development, researchers and students are therefore inclined to choose a topic or population that attracts the interests of wider audiences in both the academic and the policy worlds. Again, in Sukarieh and Tannock’s work, the Palestinian refugee participants believed that researchers are ‘self-interested people’ who are always ‘running after their own name’ and noted that ‘They study us to succeed in the university’ (Sukarieh and Tannock 2012: 502). While these insights are not untrue, it is also worth noting that there are some structural constraints facing scholars in terms of selecting research themes and populations and that overcoming these constraints often goes beyond the scope of individual researchers’ ethical conduct and choices. Consequences As discussed above, I argue that policy-driven studies can run greater risks of unethical research practices as they inherently suffer from a lack of accountability to research populations. As the previous sections demonstrate, we are already seeing some visible outcomes of over- and under-studying different refugee groups as manifested by representatives of both groups through their expression of fatigue, despair, and exclusion. For over-researched groups in Kakuma camp and in Addis Ababa, accountability to refugee participants in terms of reporting results of studies seems to be largely neglected. Research participants reported that they rarely received information about the outcomes of research they were involved in, let alone reports or other outputs. This also fuelled frustration and even resentment amongst refugee communities who participated in previous studies. Importantly, over-studying certain groups due to high policy relevance does not necessarily result in impacts at ground level. This was clearly shown by refugees both in Kakuma camp and in Addis Ababa who expressed fatigue and despair about the absence of tangible benefits from research despite many years of contributions and participation. As is widely known, the capacity of academic research—even if highly policy-driven—is often limited and unlikely to make immediate policy changes in refugees’ surrounding environments (Crisp 2018). Of course, over-researched groups of refugees have already discovered this reality from their experiences. Yet the fact that they continuously receive influxes of new researchers—like me—exacerbates their frustration and subsequently can lead to reluctance or refusal to participate in research. Under-researched groups are also unhappy and frustrated with researchers, but for reasons different from the over-researched groups. These groups are aware that they are not part of the ‘hot’ topics in the global refugee regime and feel ‘invisible’ to researchers despite the challenges they face. This further contributes to a sense of exclusion or marginalization—as one of the Burundian refugees in Addis Ababa told me, ‘No one cares about us’. As the examples above show, for both under- and over-researched groups, there emerges a set of causal pathways which correlate with the degree of policy interest as summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Causes and consequences of under- and over-researching refugees . Over-studied groups . Under-studied groups . Level of policy interest High Low Amount of existing research Abundance / repetition of research studies Limited number / absence of research studies Impact of research with refugee populations Inflated expectations / disappointment Unheard voices / unaddressed challenges Attitudes of refugees towards research / researchers Fatigue Frustration Consequences for refugee engagement in research Mistrust / refusal Sense of exclusion / marginalization . Over-studied groups . Under-studied groups . Level of policy interest High Low Amount of existing research Abundance / repetition of research studies Limited number / absence of research studies Impact of research with refugee populations Inflated expectations / disappointment Unheard voices / unaddressed challenges Attitudes of refugees towards research / researchers Fatigue Frustration Consequences for refugee engagement in research Mistrust / refusal Sense of exclusion / marginalization Open in new tab Table 1. Causes and consequences of under- and over-researching refugees . Over-studied groups . Under-studied groups . Level of policy interest High Low Amount of existing research Abundance / repetition of research studies Limited number / absence of research studies Impact of research with refugee populations Inflated expectations / disappointment Unheard voices / unaddressed challenges Attitudes of refugees towards research / researchers Fatigue Frustration Consequences for refugee engagement in research Mistrust / refusal Sense of exclusion / marginalization . Over-studied groups . Under-studied groups . Level of policy interest High Low Amount of existing research Abundance / repetition of research studies Limited number / absence of research studies Impact of research with refugee populations Inflated expectations / disappointment Unheard voices / unaddressed challenges Attitudes of refugees towards research / researchers Fatigue Frustration Consequences for refugee engagement in research Mistrust / refusal Sense of exclusion / marginalization Open in new tab In addition to a growing sense of fatigue, despair, and frustration in both over- and under-researched refugee groups, the consequences of research polarization can have wider detrimental effects on the entire field of forced migration. The existence of over- and under-researched refugee groups should be seen as a crisis of accountability and ethics amongst forced migration researchers. As Turton (2003) emphasizes, research in refugee studies is justified when it aims to improve the lives of forcibly displaced people. This means that the most important people that researchers should be accountable to are refugees themselves. With the increasing trend towards policy-driven studies, however, our accountability as researchers is drifting towards powerful actors rather than refugee participants. Critically, the current state of research polarization also has profound implications for knowledge production systems in forced migration scholarship. By pursuing policy-driven subjects as primary research agendas, academics make certain groups of displaced people more visible than others, and risk silencing the voices and lived experiences of those who are not included. Consequently, the role of research ends up reinforcing and revalidating the existing frameworks of aid regimes that decide which groups of refugees should be assisted with priority (see Fassin 2007; Harrell-Bond and Voutira 2007). In the long run, disproportionate interest in specific groups of refugees can disrupt the advancement of the entire academic discipline. Pursuing exclusively policy-driven research themes will inevitably narrow the range of research topics. Loren Landau already highlighted in his 2006 report for the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration (IASFM) conference: Rather than progress through slow cycles of knowledge, every wave of scholarship (and every IASFM gathering) risks largely reiterating the studies of its immediate predecessors. At worst, our scholarship is driven by faddish concepts, questions, and methods drawn from the policy world. (Landau 2007: 347) Unfortunately, Landau’s concerns have not been addressed, as evidenced by the increasing problem of over- and under-studied refugees in the field. Ways forward The research community needs to confront the consequences of years of over-researching and under-researching certain groups of refugees. Given the academic environment and research funding structures—as well as the need to participate and contribute to policy conversations—it is not realistic to eschew policy-driven research altogether; however, we should at least be aware of the potential risks inherent in undertaking such studies. To begin, I would propose the following as concrete and practical suggestions to mitigate existing disparity in research studies as well as to address some of the related ethical and accountability issues. First, although the underlying causes of such polarized research interests are beyond individual researchers’ capacity, some of the unethical research practices can be rectified or reduced by adhering to the basic principles of ethical research. Currently, many refugee research participants are not informed of the outcomes or consequences of the studies in which they participated, which was highlighted as one of the major drivers for their mistrust of researchers. The significance of following up with participants after research is essential. The manner of disseminating results could be in-person or even ‘virtual’ (Krause 2017). While sharing findings can be conducted in the form of group discussions with participants and refugees who worked on the projects, it can also involve sending reports via email and setting up remote calls. Second, we should also consider how to establish a system for participants to hold researchers more accountable. In order for research participants to be able to hold humanitarian researchers to account for actions and decisions, at least three elements need to be in place: 1) participants need to know what they should expect from the research; 2) they need to have a way to complain when these expectations are not met; and 3) there needs to be some mechanism for redress or sanction (see ALNAP 2018). However, refugees do not usually have the means to address their complaints to researchers and to redress failed accountability. This can be resolved by universally agreeing to have the provision of contact information as a non-negotiable ethical standard. Third, managing expectations about research outcomes with the interviewees and participants is crucial. It is necessary to speak openly and honestly about the limitations of research in terms of making any—let alone immediate—changes in people’s lives. Even if the scope of studies is on ‘hot’ topics, data collection does not always or immediately result in responsive or new interventions. While this is very basic, we should revisit how diligently, honestly and responsibly this basic reality is communicated to refugees involved in research. Fourth, we should endeavour to expand the extent of studies beyond current policy focuses or demands for statistical significance. As indicated above, under-studied groups of refugees can indeed be particularly vulnerable, while also receiving limited attention from aid organizations. Attention to under-researched populations is especially important in refugee studies. Due to lack of citizenship and political rights, refugees in asylum countries have little or no recourse to address the challenges they face and to influence the public. As Pittaway and others (2010) emphasize, ethics in forced displacement is neither simply following rules nor confined to notions of ‘do no harm’ but should be extended to actively promoting the interests and well-being of vulnerable research participants. For such purposes, exploratory qualitative research can be a useful first step as a fact-finding mission to look into the challenges faced by these neglected groups. This type of research is needed not only to nurture better understanding of those ‘under the radar’ but also to provide evidence-based data for aid organizations to respond appropriately to the needs of ‘invisible’ groups. Of course, conducting research itself has no guarantee for any immediate changes for under-studied groups. However, the exclusion of particular groups will also ensure that their challenges remain both unheard and unaddressed. Fifth, for some under-researched groups, the need for ‘advocacy’ or ‘activist’ research should be revisited, especially if unaddressed vulnerabilities are identified through exploratory studies. The field of refugee studies has emerged as an academic enterprise combining scholarly research with promoting advocacy and practice aimed at ameliorating the plight of displaced people (Schmidt 2007; Scalettaris 2007; Jacobsen and Landau 2003; Van Hear 1998). Conducting activist scholarship is not without dilemmas and costs for researchers, of course. For instance, in the field of human rights, scholar-activists may receive a wider recognition beyond the academic world; nevertheless, this ‘dual loyalty’ (Dudai 2019) may lead to a diminished status of academics working on ephemeral topics and perceived as reducing analytical rigour through non-academic motivations (see Dudai 2019; Hale 2006). However, by maintaining a disinterested and unbiased position and adhering to scientific principles, engaging in meaningful advocacy research is possible. As illustrated by contemporary human rights scholarship, the relationship between doing scientific research and contributing to improving policy and practice for those suffering from human rights violations—including forced displacement—is not mutually exclusive (Jacobsen and Landau 2003; Dudai 2019). On the contrary, scholars have the opportunity to gather rich data based on rigorous empirical foundations which can benefit the practice of operational actors. Finally, the issues above in turn necessitate more active engagement between researchers, policy-makers and aid actors. As Schmidt notes (2007), in order to increase the chances of affecting policy, the researcher becomes an active consultant and lobbyist to ‘act as a catalyst for reform’ (Harrell-Bond and Verdirame 2005). As a concrete and doable action, knowledge-exchange activities between academic and practitioners are recommended. For instance, the development of joint research projects could be proposed to deliberately explore supposedly ‘policy-irrelevant’ themes (or topics which fall outside the imminent scope of policy) and the suppressed voices of these forced migrants. Conclusion Drawing upon my fieldwork experiences in Africa, this article has examined issues relating to over-researched and under-researched refugee groups and analysed the causes behind the existence of these phenomena. The problem of polarization of research interest across refugee groups should not be reduced to simply issues of poor fieldwork protocols or unethical practices alone; rather, it should be discussed as a structural problem facing the current forced migration discipline. The presence of over- and under-studied refugee populations requires more attention in forced migration scholarship. As Crisp (2018) notes, recent years have witnessed a rapid proliferation in the number of research centres, policy institutes, journals, websites, conferences, and workshops devoted to refugee-related issues. If we continue to neglect the bubbling fatigue, mistrust, despair and frustration of over-researched and under-researched refugee groups, these issues will only become exacerbated with the increased number of researchers. Furthermore, this negligence could end up significantly undermining the accountability and credibility of the research community in the eyes of refugee populations. Conducting research in humanitarian and refugee contexts is largely contingent on the trust and willingness of affected populations to participate in our studies (see Clark 2008; Israel 2015). If we do not take these phenomena and consequences seriously, researchers in forced migration could be reasonably accused of ‘handling’ participants as ‘data sources’ (Krause 2017)—without a genuine interest in their voices or in helping vulnerable groups. To give serious consideration to the under- and over-studying of refugee groups requires us to think through the raison d’être of refugee studies, ethics, and accountability of researchers within the current political and academic environment. Acknowledgements I would like to thank numerous refugees in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia, who have spent time and shared their feelings and sentiments with me. I am also very grateful to Nina Weaver for her insightful comments. References Al-Hardan A. 2014 . Decolonizing Research on Palestinians: Towards Critical Epistemologies and Research Practices . Qualitative Inquiry 20 ( 1 ): 61 – 71 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat ALNAP (Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance). 2018 . The State of the Humanitarian System . London : ALNAP/ODI (Overseas Development Institute ). Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Anderson M. 1999 . Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace—or War . Boulder, CO : Lynne Rienner . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bakewell O. 2008 . Research Beyond the Categories: The Importance of Policy Irrelevant Research into Forced Migration . Journal of Refugee Studies 21 ( 4 ): 432 – 53 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Ballinger C. 2012 . Accountability. In Given L. (ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods , pp. 3 – 4 . Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publications . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bloch A. 2020 . Reflections and Directions for Research in Refugee Studies . Ethnic and Racial Studies 43 ( 3 ): 436 – 59 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bolzman C. 2014 . Older Refugees. In Fiddian-Qasmiyeh E. , Loescher G. , Long K. , Sigona N. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies , pp. 409 – 19 . Oxford University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Clark T. 2008 . ‘We’re Over-Researched Here!’ Exploring Accounts of Research Fatigue within Qualitative Research Engagements. Sociology 42 ( 5 ): 953 – 70 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Cole G. 2018 . Beyond Labelling: Rethinking the Role and Value of the Refugee ‘Label’ through Semiotics . Journal of Refugee Studies 31 ( 1 ): 1 – 21 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crisp J. 2018 . A Global Academic Network on Refugees: Some Unanswered Questions . International Journal of Refugee Law 30 ( 4 ): 640 – 42 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Davis A. 2007 . Concerning Accountability in Humanitarian Action. Humanitarian Practice Network . London : ODI . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC DFID (Department for International Development). 2016 . A Guide for DFID-Funded Research Programmes. Dudai R. 2019 . The Study of Human Rights Practice: State of the Art . Journal of Human Rights Practice 11 ( 2 ): 273 – 95 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Fassin D. 2007 . Humanitarianism as a Politics of Life . Public Culture 19 ( 3 ): 499 – 520 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Gatrell P. 2017 . Refugees—What’s Wrong with History? Journal of Refugee Studies 30 ( 2 ): 170 – 89 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Goodhand J. 2000 . Research in Conflict Zones: Ethics and Accountability . Forced Migration Review 8 : 12 – 15 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Hale C. R. 2006 . Activist Research v. Cultural Critique: Indigenous Land Rights and the Contradictions of Politically Engaged Anthropology . Cultural Anthropology 21 ( 1 ): 96 – 120 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Hammett D. , Jackson L. , Vickers D. . 2019 . The Ethics of (Not) Giving Back . Area 51 ( 2 ): 380 – 86 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Harrell-Bond B. E. , Verdirame G. . 2005 . Rights in Exile: Janus-Faced Humanitarianism . New York : Berghahn Books . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Harrell-Bond B. E. , Voutira E. . 2007 . In Search of ‘Invisible’ Actors: Barriers to Access in Refugee Research . Journal of Refugee Studies 20 ( 2 ): 281 – 98 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Hugman R. , Pittaway E. , Bartolomei L. . 2011 . When ‘Do No Harm’ Is Not Enough: The Ethics of Research with Refugees and Other Vulnerable Groups . British Journal of Social Work 41 ( 7 ): 1271 – 87 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat IASFM (International Association for the Study of Forced Migration). 2019 . Disrupting Theory, Unsettling Practice: Towards Transformative Forced Migration Scholarship and Policy. International Finance Corporation. 2018 . Kakuma as a Marketplace. Israel M. 2015 . Research Ethics and Integrity for Social Scientists. SAGE Publications. Jacobsen K. , Landau L. B. . 2003 . The Dual Imperative in Refugee Research: Some Methodological and Ethical Considerations in Research on Forced Migration . Disasters 27 ( 3 ): 185 – 206 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Krause U. 2017 . Researching Forced Migration: Critical Reflections on Research Ethics During Fieldwork. Working Paper 123. Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford. Landau L. B. 2007 . Can We Talk and Is Anybody Listening? Reflections on IASFM 10, Talking Across Borders: New Dialogues in Forced Migration . Journal of Refugee Studies 20 ( 3 ): 335 – 48 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Leaning J. 2001 . Ethics of Research in Refugee Populations . The Lancet 357 : 1432 – 3 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Mackenzie C. , McDowell C. , Pittaway E. . 2007 . Beyond ‘Do No Harm’: The Challenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee Research . Journal of Refugee Studies 20 ( 2 ): 299 – 319 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Mirza M. 2014 . Disability and Forced Migration. In Fiddian-Qasmiyeh E. , Loescher G. , Long K. , Sigona N. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies , pp. 420 – 32 . Oxford University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Pacitto J. , Fiddian-Qasmiyeh E. . 2013 . Writing the ‘Other’ into Humanitarian Discourse: Framing Theory and Practice in South–South Humanitarian Responses to Forced Displacement. New Issues in Refugee Research, Research Paper No. 257. Geneva: UNHCR. Pittaway E. , Bartolomei L. , Hugman R. . 2010 . ‘ Stop Stealing Our Stories’: The Ethics of Research with Vulnerable Groups . Journal of Human Rights Practice 2 ( 2 ): 229 – 51 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Polzer T. , Hammond L. . 2008 . Invisible Displacement . Journal of Refugee Studies 21 ( 4 ): 417 – 31 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Scalettaris G. 2007 . Refugee Studies and the International Refugee Regime: A Reflection on a Desirable Separation . Refugee Survey Quarterly 26 ( 3 ): 36 – 50 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Schmidt A. 2007 . ‘I Know What You’re Doing’: Reflexivity and Methods in Refugee Studies . Refugee Survey Quarterly 26 ( 3 ): 82 – 99 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Stockton N. 2005 . The Accountable Humanitarian. Luce Lecture. http://www.hapinternational.org/pdf_word/506-The%20accountable%20humanitarian.pdf (referenced 16 September 2019). Sukarieh M. , Tannock S. . 2012 . On the Problem of Over-Researched Communities: The Case of the Shatila Palestinian Refugee Camp in Lebanon . Sociology 47 ( 3 ): 494 – 508 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Turton D. 2003 . Refugees, Forced Resettlers and ‘Other Forced Migrants’: Towards a Unitary Study of Forced Migration. New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 94. Geneva: UNHCR. UNHCR. 2019 . Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2018. Van Hear N. 1998 . Editorial Introduction . Journal of Refugee Studies 11 ( 4 ): 341 – 50 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Women’s Refugee Commission. 2008 . Disabilities among Refugees and Conflict-Affected Populations. © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - ‘Over-researched’ and ‘Under-researched’ refugee groups: Exploring the phenomena, causes and consequences
JF - Journal of Human Rights Practice
DO - 10.1093/jhuman/huaa049
DA - 2021-02-25
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/over-researched-and-under-researched-refugee-groups-exploring-the-B4j6U7qJh3
SP - 681
EP - 695
VL - 12
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -