Not all refugee groups receive equal attention from researchers. Among certain groups of refugees who have been the subject of numerous research studies, there is increasingly ‘research fatigue’, while there are other groups of refugees who feel they are under-studied, and their voices not heard. This article discusses the phenomena of ‘over-researched’ and ‘under-researched’ refugee populations, the possible causes of these phenomena, and the consequences for research ethics and accountability in humanitarian contexts. The analysis is based on specific case studies of over- and under-researched refugee populations in East Africa.
Key points:
- There is growing frustration, fatigue, and mistrust towards researchers amongst refugees within both over-studied and under-studied groups.
- Many over-studied groups (e.g. refugees in Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya, Eritrean refugees in Addis Ababa) are increasingly uninterested in or even mistrustful of researchers, due to the absence of concrete benefits from interactions with researchers as well as the lack of any follow-up after research has taken place. Additionally, there is a fair amount of redundancy in the research, with the same questions asked repeatedly by different researchers.
- Other groups considered themselves ‘under-researched’ or even neglected. For example, refugees amongst less represented nationalities (e.g. Burundian and Congolese refugees in Addis Ababa) may be particularly vulnerable but may be excluded from research studies because they are not from the main Eritrean and Somali refugee groups. The author also highlights the example of refugees with disabilities and elderly refugees in Kampala, Uganda, who have limited livelihood options.
- 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. For example, 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.
- Another key factor of importance to policymakers is 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. Additionally, policymakers tend to prefer quantifiable data and analysis with the capability for broad generalization of findings, and it is difficult to achieve statistically significant findings with smaller-sized refugee populations.
- In academic institutions there is an imperative to pursue policy-driven studies, a trend that is linked to both funding and academic recognition (publication and citations).
- Policy-driven studies can run greater risks of unethical research practices as they inherently suffer from a lack of accountability to research populations. Research participants (e.g. in Kakuma and Addis) report that they rarely received information about the outcomes of research they were involved in, let alone reports or other outputs. Refugees also expressed fatigue and despair about the absence of tangible benefits from research despite many years of contributions and participation.
- 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.
The author proposes several actions to mitigate existing disparity in research studies as well as to address some of the related ethical and accountability issues, as follows:
- Adhere to the basic principles of ethical research. 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 wellbeing of vulnerable research participants.
- Establish a system for participants to hold researchers more accountable. Participants should know what to expect from the research, they need to have a way to complain when these expectations are not met (at a minimum they should be provided with contact details for researchers), and there needs to be some mechanism for redress or sanction.
- Manage expectations about research outcomes with interviewees and participants.
- Expand the extent of studies beyond current policy focuses or demands for statistical significance. Exploratory qualitative research can be a useful first step as a fact-finding mission to look into the challenges faced by these neglected groups.
- For some under-researched groups, the need for ‘advocacy’ or ‘activist’ research should be revisited, especially if unaddressed vulnerabilities are identified through exploratory studies.
- More active engagement between researchers, policy-makers and aid actors. Knowledge-exchange activities between academic and practitioners are recommended, e.g. development of joint research projects could be proposed to explore topics which fall outside the imminent scope of policy.