The panel discussion took place on September 15 at the University of Vienna as part of the 9th Conference on Migration Research in Austria. The evening was moderated by Michael Fanizadeh (VIDC Global Dialogue). Participants jointly presented examples illustrating the necessity of migration research conducted by members of the diaspora and discussed challenges regarding the relationships between researchers and the researched, theory and practice, and independence and funding.
Fanizadeh opened the event with a critical assessment of how migration research is currently conducted: While migrant researchers and voices from the diaspora are now more visible, there is still no sign of their comprehensive integration into research processes. How can this be changed?
Racist Stereotypes: What Is (Still) Taught in Austrian Schools
To kick off the discussion, Katharina A. Oke presented the AEWTASS (Advancing Equality Within the Austrian School System) research project, in which she participated and which draws heavily on the expertise of members of the African diaspora. The researchers took a critical and transdisciplinary approach to examining the portrayal of the African continent in Austrian textbooks and teaching materials. It became clear that the history of the African continent had been reduced to oppression and slavery, with problematic terminology being used and visual depictions that were either negative or reinforced colonial and racist stereotypes. Oke pointed out how influential such books are in shaping public opinion and collective consciousness, and how much unquestioning trust is placed in them.
The project team worked to counter these problematic depictions with more nuanced representations. A key part of the research project was also engaging with key stakeholders in the education sector—including publishers, teachers, and students. The goal is to facilitate “global citizenship education,” but this will require continued support and funding.
Who Are the Migration Experts?
Daniela Paredes Grijalva examined the relationship between researchers and those being researched on a conceptual level. Who is viewed as a (migration) expert? Who is the subject with the power to interpret, and who is presented as a seemingly passive research subject? When it comes to migration, she noted, there are dominant narratives from which those truly affected are excluded. Therefore, a new understanding of who is viewed as a migration expert is needed. When Paredes Grijalva speaks with people who have migrated from one place to another, it is clear to her: These individuals already possess knowledge and are experts on or in something. As a researcher, she has the opportunity to learn from them.
However, a completely different approach is reflected in European and Austrian integration policies. Here, migrants are expected to assimilate, while obstacles are placed in their path and their knowledge and skills remain untapped. Instead of asking how people arriving in Austria could better manage their new situation—even though certain things are deliberately made difficult for them—we should rather ask: How can society be structured so that everyone has a place and receives recognition for their specific expertise? Similarly, within civil society networks, actors from the Global North would have to be much more open and change the conditions under which they engage with people from the Global South.
Preventive Research
Dunia Khalil, who works in legal counseling for victims of racism, highlighted above all the gap between research and actual change—that is, practice. When victims come in for counseling, she explained, they arrive with very concrete situations, not abstract concepts. It is important to understand what happens before the situation arises that then leads a person to seek support. The problem, she noted, is often that racist structures in academia or the media are only recognized as such once certain situations occur ‘often enough’ and are backed by statistics. But Khalil urges: ‘A problem should not have to happen often enough before we recognize it.’ To address this, she argued, research must be transdisciplinary in nature and take on a preventive role. The question must be: What will become a structural problem if certain measures are not taken now? Khalil also emphasized that immigrant communities must be involved in research projects from the very beginning. They are the ones from whom the knowledge comes, and it is ultimately their lived reality that reveals the extent to which findings are translated into practice.
What Are the Current Shortcomings of Migration Research?
The speakers agreed that the expertise of diaspora communities has so far received little recognition as such. There needs to be much more ongoing exchange between academia and the affected communities, not just on an ad hoc basis for the purpose of a specific research project. Furthermore, there is still too little transdisciplinary and intersectional work being done. Critical Race Theory has also hardly been part of research in Austria so far, according to Khalil. In some areas, such as anti-Muslim racism, research is still in its very early stages.
The reason why, in some cases, little progress is being made in research—or why researchers are forced to act reactively rather than preventively—is the problem of insufficient funding. Which (research) projects receive funding? What should—from the funding agencies’ perspective—be discussed, and what should not? Khalil cited the Israel/Palestine issue as an example. When asked about the difficulty of securing funding for anti-racist or decolonial projects, however, the panelists agreed: one should have the courage to address certain sensitive topics. After all, fundamental human rights are at stake.
Key takeaways from the evening:
• Institutional inclusion: Research institutes must provide access for migrant scholars and maintain ongoing dialogue with diaspora communities to define research agendas.
• Preventive research: Researchers should focus less on describing crises that have already manifested and instead conduct preventive research, which requires a transdisciplinary approach.
• Recognition of informal knowledge: It is necessary to recognize the informal knowledge of those directly affected as expertise and to integrate it into the research process from the very beginning.
• Courageous scholarship: Despite financial dependence, funding agencies should not be allowed to hold sole interpretive power over integration narratives. Instead of preemptive self-censorship, courage is needed to address sensitive topics such as structural racism and Islamophobia without reservation.