Abstract

AbstractResearchers' methodological decisions have an impact on who gets to hear a refugees' story, the meaning a story conveys, and, consequently, the implications a story might have for forced migrants. What we as researchers, or aid workers, do with the stories gathered from forced migrants can contribute to their social and political invisibility, or our scholarship can be a tool to amplify refugee voices as forms of knowledge that are valid not only as testimony but as expertise to design research, programmes and policies. What potential do such methods have to disrupt the “established regimes” of what is audible, visible, or legible in society (Rancière, 2010)? In response to what is now widespread recognition of the “dual imperative” in forced migration research (Jacobsen and Landau 2003), action research has emerged as a common way to do research that is useful to the communities with which we engage. In this article we reflect on our efforts as researchers to address power imbalances by placing forced migrant stories at the forefront of our methods. We rely on two case studies to provide insights into and learn from critical narratives from the displaced themselves: 1) at the Thai-Burmese border, 2) with Somali refugee returnees in Kismayo. The two case studies reveal different ways of working with stories and strategies that can help address the inaudibility of refugee stories. We recognize that such work is necessarily partial and ongoing. To identify space for continued growth and learning, we point to moments where collaboration faltered and moments where our research inadvertently reproduced power inequities.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call