The question of knowledge production in forced displacement

We live in a global political order strained by multiple crises and/or drivers of vulnerability. Key among such crises are increased instances of armed conflicts in various parts of the world, which are giving rise to an ever-increasing number of displaced persons. UNHCR’s annual flagship report, Global Trends, presents another disheartening picture on the state of global displacement. Forced displacement has undoubtedly become one of the most defining elements of our present global political order.

In comparison to the ever-growing number of displaced persons, global response to this challenge remains dismal. A central question, often overlooked in discussions of this nature, is that related to the knowledge production process about forced displacement; in other words, how, when, by whom and in whose terms are key issues related to forced displacement framed? While the primary focus of this commentary is not on the newly released annual report of UNHCR, the report is cited as an example that shall make part and parcel of the conversation on knowledge production.

For organisations like Cohere, which is committed to the objective of “shifting power and transforming communities” (particularly in the context of response to forced displacement), the question of knowledge production is a central element of our organisational commitment, with cross-cutting importance to different areas of work: from promoting the objective of equitable partnerships between refugee-led organisations (RLOs), donors and other actors, to shifting the mindset of key stakeholders in the sector, and several other related activities.

Here, it may be helpful to give a concrete example of how we do business with our RLO partners and what our view is on the measurement of success or impact for the work they do. We mention impact as a pertinent example because how various actors understand or measure impact depends (to a large extent) on their worldviews, which in turn influences their modalities of knowledge production. In our work, we always emphasise on the importance of measuring success on the basis of how our RLO partners understand success in their own terms, including their own knowledge production processes, rather than on what or how donors would like to define success. Often, the kind of success donors expect, based on their own pre-conceptions and methods of knowledge production, can be completely detached from the everyday life of displaced persons, based on which RLOs define the meaning of success in their work and to which they are privy more than any other actor in the sector.

In our work, we hear actors saying that their actions and interventions are informed by and aligned to the needs and priorities of the communities they intend to serve – so to speak, displaced persons. What we do not hear quite so often is how “informed” are their decision-making processes by the views and perspectives of the communities they intend to serve? It is in questions of this nature that the element of knowledge production comes into play.

If we narrow down the focus on displacement financing, for example, we need to ask crucial questions to the following effect: what are the key considerations for funders/donors (private or public) in dispersing their money that aims to alleviate the plight of displaced persons? How are such considerations shaped and framed, and in what terms of knowledge production? How are decision-making processes in this regard informed? What modalities of knowledge production are involved? For donors, who are primarily interested in sustaining the status quo of entrenched global imbalances, there is no way to implement their funding exercises without sacrificing other (ulterior) motives of sustaining power. For purposes of lip service, reference to the genuine interests of vulnerable communities may be made here and there (at times merely in the form of passing remarks) in various documents (for example, “outputs” of knowledge production). In reality, such words end up becoming only ink on paper.

Going back to the flagship UNHCR report cited above, it is a typical example of a knowledge production process exercised by a leading actor in the global refugee response sector. It would then be important to ask further questions of the following nature: How much do we know regarding the involvement of people with “lived experience” of forced displacement in framing the key issues that lead to the production of the report? What is the extent to which “standpoint epistemology” (knowledge primarily based on lived experience of people affected by forced displacement) is given serious consideration in the preparation of the report? What is the likelihood of the report (its findings, conclusions and framing of issues) being influenced by considerations of donor funding or other ulterior motives of various actors who can exert considerable pressure on UNHCR? All of these questions are critical for an egalitarian knowledge production process at the centre of which lies the actual and meaningful participation of forcibly displaced persons themselves.

In saying the above, we acknowledge the fact that knowledge by itself and the way we process, impart and receive it, is not a neutral process. Such processes are deeply informed by our respective “value” or “belief” systems and other considerations, not to mention the influence powerful actors play in the process of knowledge production. Funding, understandably a factor that is intrinsically linked to power imbalances, is one of the primary considerations in processes of knowledge production.

How is it, for example, the largest displacement crisis in the world at the moment (Sudan), according to some UNHCR sources, does not receive at least the same level of attention by the international community as we see in other situations (such as Ukraine)? Some may call this a typical example of “double standards.” But broadly understood, it is very much related to lopsided processes of knowledge production about forced displacement. It is only through such broader understandings that our continued effort of reforming the refugee sector can bear tangible outcomes.

The question is, therefore, that of challenging existing methodologies of knowledge prodcution that are disproportionately dominated by ideological, geopolitical and other considerations of paramount imbalances. If knowledge required for decision-making processes were to be produced through active involvement of the most affected people themselves, chances would be higher for such decisions to resonate with what is needed at the ground level, as would be required by the everyday life and experience of displaced persons

Across the sector, it is not rare to see powerful actors who are determined to mould “suitable” modes of knowledge production in ways that serve their own self-interests – financial or otherwise. That serves to affirm their interventions and act as a form of confirmation bias. Often, such processes take the form of hierarchical and rigid structures that are not considerate of the needs and priorities of displaced persons. In overcoming these obstacles, so to say challenging outdated modes of knowledge production, remains a key factor, also making part of the struggle of ending various forms of injustices that are prevalent in the global refugee response sector. This observation is partly informed by the following understanding. The word doesn’t change merely by the good wishes of well-meaning individuals or initiatives of individuals and collectives. It mainly changes by the struggle of those who carry the brunt of injustices. This is a well-known premise of social movement theory, which is not far from the principal aim of an egalitarian knowledge production process on forced displacement. It is also in alignment with the concept of “meaningful refugee participation,” as envisaged by the 2018 Global Compact on Refugees.