Ambivalent Recognition in Higher Education: Institutional Gatekeeping and Epistemic Justice in Higher Education in Migration Societies
This conceptual paper analyzes the ambivalent nature of institutional recognition in Western European higher education, using the University of Oldenburg's "Pedagogy and Social Work in the Migration Society" program as a case study to demonstrate how competency-based practices can challenge deficit-oriented approaches while simultaneously reproducing Eurocentric hierarchies, ultimately proposing a Community-Based Participatory Research framework to foster epistemic justice and structural transformation.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Universities are often imagined as great engines of opportunity, places where talent is discovered and futures are built. Yet, for many people who have moved across borders to study or work, these institutions can feel like fortresses with hidden rules. The problem is not just that doors are closed, but that the very definition of what counts as "knowledge" or "skill" is often written in a language that excludes them. This is the territory of a new conceptual paper by researchers Ayca Polat and Gamze Keklik from the University of Oldenburg in Germany. They are asking a difficult question: when a university says it recognizes a foreign degree, is it truly opening a door, or is it simply checking a box while keeping the old, narrow rules in place? To understand this, one must grasp two ideas. First, "recognition" is the official act of accepting someone's past education as valid. Second, "epistemic justice" is the idea that fairness in knowledge means valuing different ways of learning and thinking, not just the ones taught in Western Europe. The authors argue that the current system is broken because it treats people from other countries as if they are missing something, rather than seeing the unique strengths they bring.
The researchers begin by describing the reality for many students and scholars with migration backgrounds. Despite universities talking about diversity, these individuals often face a "sea of whiteness," a term used to describe environments where the default culture is white and European, making everyone else feel like an outsider. This is not just about rude comments; it is built into the paperwork and the rules. For instance, a student who studied social work in another country might be told their degree is not equal to a German one, forcing them to start over or take extra, expensive tests. The system often assumes that if a person struggles, it is because they are not smart enough or do not speak the language well enough, ignoring the fact that the system itself is rigid and unfair. The paper points out that this creates a cycle where talented people are pushed into low-paying jobs or drop out of school, not because they lack ability, but because the gatekeepers of the university do not know how to see their value.
To show how things could be different, the authors look at a specific program at their own university called "Pedagogy and Social Work in the Migration Society." This program was designed for people who already have university degrees from other countries. Instead of making them repeat years of study, the program looks at what they already know. If a student has a degree in education from Syria or Turkey, the university checks their specific skills and gives them credit for up to two years of study, letting them start in their third semester. They also value languages like Arabic or Turkish as a professional asset, rather than just seeing them as a barrier. The results are striking: the program has a dropout rate of about ten percent, which is much lower than the average for international students in Germany. This suggests that when universities stop treating foreign experience as a deficit and start treating it as an asset, people succeed.
However, the authors are careful not to call this a perfect solution. They argue that even this successful program has a hidden downside. By creating a special track for foreign students, the university might accidentally signal that these students are "exceptions" to the normal rule, rather than changing the rule itself. The main university building still operates on old, Eurocentric standards, and students in this special program still face racism and exclusion when they attend regular classes with everyone else. The recognition they receive is "ambivalent," meaning it has two sides: it opens a door for them to enter, but it also reinforces the idea that the standard way of doing things is the only right way. The researchers suggest that true change requires more than just a special program; it requires a shift in how knowledge is produced and who gets to decide what counts as valid.
To fix this, the paper proposes a new way of doing research called Community-Based Participatory Research. In this approach, the people being studied—students and scholars with migration backgrounds—are not just subjects to be observed. They become partners who help design the research, ask the questions, and interpret the answers. This is meant to break the power imbalance where the university holds all the authority. The authors admit that this is difficult to do perfectly, as the university still holds the funding and the power, but they see it as a necessary step toward fairness. They argue that empowerment is not just about an individual student surviving the system; it is about the group working together to change the system itself.
The paper concludes with a call for universities to stop pretending that their current diversity efforts are enough. They urge institutions to change their policies so that legal rules about visas and degrees do not punish people for having non-traditional paths. They also want teachers and administrators to examine their own biases and change how they teach. The authors are clear that they have not solved the problem with this paper; they have only mapped the terrain. They offer a framework for understanding why recognition is so complicated and suggest that the only way forward is to build a system where different kinds of knowledge are truly respected, not just tolerated. The goal is to move from a place where universities simply check boxes to a place where they genuinely transform the way they see the world and the people in it.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.