Gerawork Teferra, a colleague and collaborator of ours who lives in Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya, observed on taking a course about global history that refugees were only marginally present as historical actors and that no refugee scholars figured as authors of the course texts. The absence of (especially encamped) refugees as historians is an extreme version of a by now well-documented phenomenon: that scholarship about the Global South, and in particular about Africa, is overwhelmingly produced by scholars in and from the Global North (Jeater, 2018; Mama, 2007).

As other social scientists, historians and Africanists have argued, this inequality in scholarly production is fed by prior inequalities that are both material and epistemic (Afro-Asian Networks Research Collective, 2018; Auma et al., 2020; Biney, 2016; Landau, 2012; Martin & Dandekar, 2021; Monson, 2016; Vanyoro, 2019). Universities and research centres in the United States and western Europe are far wealthier than their African counterparts and able to finance ambitious international research agendas. Many excellent initiatives have attempted to channel some of those funds to African scholars through workshops, training programmes and research partnerships, but the inherent inequality of the funding structure persists (Schenck & Wetzel, 2022). Still, funding alone is only part of the story. As Diana Jeater observes, the most important journals routinely reject the scholarship of African authors because it does not conform to hegemonic, Global North understandings of ‘good’ knowledge production (Jeater, 2018). Exclusion from these journals perpetuates inequalities in access to resources, as funding bodies prefer to support those projects that will have high ‘impact’, as measured by publication in prestigious academic journals.

Exacerbating these inequalities and exclusions in the case of refugee and displaced historians are conditions of often extreme material deprivation, lack of citizenship status and consequent confinement to refugee camps, and limited access to institutions of higher education that could provide training, support and other resources to refugee researchers. For refugee historians, the kind of international mobility, access to vast institutional repositories such as libraries and archives, and engagement with a global network of colleagues and peers – the background conditions of historical scholarship for Global North scholars – are typically unthinkable. What's more, as refugee studies scholars have repeatedly shown, a hermeneutic of suspicion greets refugees, who are almost paradigmatically doubted as bearers or producers of knowledge (Fassin & D'Halluin, 2005; Gatrell, 2013; Jensen, 2018). As we have written elsewhere, ‘…refugees living in camps are [assumed] not [to be] historians for ‘historically explicable reasons,’ to borrow Bonnie Smith's phrase. They do not do the things historians do because they cannot: they cannot consult archives, they cannot access [libraries]…It is as though (encamped) refugee and historian have been defined as mutually exclusive identities. A person residing in a refugee camp cannot be a historian because a historian, quite simply, cannot be a person residing in a refugee camp’ (Reed & Schenck, 2023).

The exclusion of refugees from the work of knowledge production is particularly troubling given the now well-established and widely accepted framework of standpoint epistemology, which holds that knowledge is socially situated and thus that a person's social position is salient for the kinds of knowledge to which they have access. The recognition that social circumstances matter for knowing should encourage a profound democratisation of knowledge production in order to open up as many ways of knowing as possible. As philosopher Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò argues, however, the operation of standpoint epistemology in practice tends to concentrate power in the places where it already lies, selecting a few ‘marginalised’ voices for inclusion without engaging or dismantling the structures of exclusion that keep most marginalised people on the outside in the first place (Táíwò, 2020).

What would it mean to take a more robust approach to standpoint epistemology? Put differently, what would it mean for a refugee to be a historian, or for the ‘right to research’ to be meaningfully extended to those who are so often the subject of Global North academic inquiries, but all too rarely historical narrators in their own right (Appadurai, 2006)?

For the rest of this short piece, we explore one imperfect but generative attempt to move towards a world in which refugee authors are taken seriously as historians in their own right, capable – perhaps uniquely so – of producing rich historical and social scientific knowledge. The Afro-Asian Networks Research Collective (2018) ‘call[s] for an attitudinal shift where research is not ‘owned’ or ‘discovered,’ but enabled and shared’ and where ‘continuous, “real-time” collaboration – from project conception to group archival research, source-sharing, and online collaborative spaces’ becomes the norm, rather than the exception. This approach allows for a wider participation of voices in (historical) scholarship.

In response to Gerawork Teferra's observation that refugee historians were missing from our global history course, we developed an oral history and research methods training course, called the Global History Dialogues Project (www.globalhistorydialogues.org), that provided refugee, displaced and host community students around the world the opportunity to learn skills in interviewing, historical research and project design. Our classroom internalised inequalities and power imbalances that are normally sharp divisions on the academic and pedagogical landscape: Global North academics working with Global South students; U.S. and European citizens training refugee and displaced researchers; the list goes on. However, the project differed from most comparable programmes in that it was not a ‘co-researching’ project in which refugee authors generated data for, or assisted in the implementation of, a predetermined research agenda. Rather, participants had the flexibility to design their own research questions and methods to match their interests and circumstances. The teaching staff played a facilitating role, helping researchers develop their projects, addressing questions about research ethics and method, and providing feedback and editing assistance during the writing-up process. University funding enabled researchers to offset the costs of research, in terms of both travel to interview sites and the opportunity cost of participating in the program.

Student-researchers produced ground-breaking scholarship that contributes to our collective understanding of humanitarian organisations, refugee experiences of encampment, migration circuits in Eastern Africa, and much, much more (Omar, 2022; Reed & Schenck, 2023; Teferra, 2022). But the ability to inquire into the unknown and answer questions of pressing personal or community importance is only part of a meaningful right to research. Just as important is being taken seriously by wider publics as a bearer of knowledge. This raised the complicated question of publication and dissemination. How should the results of this research be shared? To which publics? In what form?

While no part of the Global History Dialogues Project was ever free from the inequalities and power imbalances inherent to such a collaboration, these questions of how to share research results proved thorniest. Informed by our backgrounds, academic training and areas of expertise, we emphasised traditional forms of publication in academic venues, including refereed journals and university presses. For some student-researchers, reaching local audiences or humanitarian organisations through community-based presentations was more important. Cognizant that the democratisation of historical knowledge production that we imagine is a process that must be worked out in practice, with many setbacks and false starts, we have found in these disagreements and challenges important moments for collective reflection on the limitations of this mode of working towards a real right to research (Abdalla et al., 2021). The process of becoming researchers in a highly unequal global context thus becomes, in its own right, a site of inquiry, which can hopefully nourish and inform future attempts in this vein (Wetzel et al., 2023).

In The Right to Research, an anthology of student-researcher essays from the first two years of this program, we explore in more detail both the rich and crucial insights that flow from the historical understanding generated by refugee and migrant scholars, and the profound challenges and tensions that shape any attempt to facilitate such research and bring it into wider conversations involving audiences of academics, affected communities and humanitarian practitioners (Reed & Schenck, 2023). An enormous amount of work remains to be done: the efforts we describe here are deeply flawed and not intended as blueprints or models. Rather, we hope that by opening the conversation about what a real right to research would mean – and whether that is even a helpful framework for thinking about the production and sharing of knowledge – we invite as expansive a public as possible to join us in thinking about, and addressing, the stark inequalities that have so deeply moulded both our world and the ways we understand and interpret it.

Gerawork Teferra 是我们的同事兼合作者，住在肯尼亚的 Kakuma 难民营，他在上一门关于全球历史的课程时观察到，难民只是作为历史演员出现在边缘，而且没有难民学者被认为是课程文本的作者。没有（尤其是扎营的）难民成为历史学家是目前已被充分记录的现象的一个极端版本：关于全球南方，特别是关于非洲的学术研究，绝大多数是由来自全球北方的学者创造的（Jeater，  2018 年；妈妈，  2007 年）。

正如其他社会科学家、历史学家和非洲学家所争论的那样，学术成果中的这种不平等是由先前的物质和认知不平等造成的（Afro-Asian Networks Research Collective，2018 年；Auma 等人，2020 年；Biney  ， 2016 年；  Landau，  2012 年；Martin & Dandekar，  2021 年；Monson，  2016 年；Vanyoro，  2019 年). 美国和西欧的大学和研究中心比非洲同行富裕得多，能够资助雄心勃勃的国际研究议程。许多优秀的举措都试图通过研讨会、培训计划和研究合作伙伴关系将其中一些资金引导给非洲学者，但资金结构固有的不平等现象仍然存在（Schenck & Wetzel，2022 年 ）。尽管如此，资金本身只是故事的一部分。正如戴安娜·杰特 (Diana Jeater) 所观察到的那样，最重要的期刊通常会拒绝非洲作者的奖学金，因为它不符合霸权的、全球北方对“好”知识生产的理解（杰特，2018 年 ）). 被排除在这些期刊之外使获取资源的不平等现象长期存在，因为资助机构更愿意支持那些将具有高“影响力”的项目，以在著名学术期刊上发表的文章来衡量。

在难民和流离失所的历史学家的情况下，加剧这些不平等和排斥的是经常极端物质匮乏、缺乏公民身份和随后被限制在难民营的条件，以及进入高等教育机构的机会有限，这些机构可以提供培训、支持和其他资源难民研究人员。对于难民历史学家来说，这种国际流动性、对图书馆和档案馆等庞大机构资料库的访问权，以及与全球同事和同行网络的接触——对全球北方学者来说，历史奖学金的背景条件——通常是不可想象的。更重要的是，正如难民研究学者一再表明的那样，一种对难民的怀疑解释学， 2005年；加特雷尔，  2013 年；詹森，  2018 年）。正如我们在其他地方所写的那样，“……生活在难民营中的难民 [assumed] 不是 [to be] 历史学家，借用邦妮·史密斯 (Bonnie Smith) 的话来说，是出于‘历史上可解释的原因’。他们不做历史学家做的事情，因为他们做不到：他们不能查阅档案，他们不能访问[图书馆]……就好像（扎营的）难民和历史学家被定义为相互排斥的身份。居住在难民营中的人不能成为历史学家，因为很简单，历史学家不能成为居住在难民营中的人”（Reed & Schenck，2023 年 ）。

将难民排除在知识生产工作之外尤其令人不安，因为现在已经确立并被广泛接受的立场认识论框架认为，知识是社会定位的，因此一个人的社会地位对于知识的种类来说是显着的。他们可以访问。认识到社会环境对知识很重要，应该鼓励知识生产的深度民主化，以开辟尽可能多的知识途径。然而，正如哲学家 Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò 所说，立场认识论在实践中的运作倾向于将权力集中在它已经存在的地方， 2020 年）。

对立场认识论采取更稳健的方法意味着什么？换句话说，对于难民来说，成为历史学家意味着什么，或者将“研究权”有意义地扩展到那些经常成为全球北方学术调查的主题，但很少有自己的历史叙述者的人意味着什么对吗（Appadurai，  2006 年）？

对于这篇短文的其余部分，我们探索了一种不完美但富有成效的尝试，目的是走向一个难民作家因其自身的权利而被认真对待的历史学家，能够——也许是独一无二的——创造丰富的历史和社会科学知识的世界。Afro-Asian Networks Research Collective（2018 年）“呼吁态度转变，即研究不是‘拥有’或‘发现’，而是启用和共享”，并且‘持续、“实时”协作——来自项目群体档案研究、资源共享和在线协作空间的概念成为常态，而不是例外。这种方法允许更广泛地参与（历史）学术研究。

为了回应 Gerawork Teferra 的观察，即我们的全球历史课程中缺少难民历史学家，我们开发了一个口述历史和研究方法培训课程，称为全球历史对话项目 (www.globalhistorydialogues.org)，为难民、流离失所者和收容社区提供世界各地的学生有机会学习采访、历史研究和项目设计方面的技能。我们的课堂内化了不平等和权力不平衡，这通常是学术和教学领域的严重分歧：全球北方学者与全球南方学生合作；美国和欧洲公民培训难民和流离失所的研究人员；清单还在继续。然而，该项目与大多数类似项目的不同之处在于，它不是难民作者为预定研究议程生成数据或协助实施预定研究议程的“共同研究”项目。相反，参与者可以灵活地设计自己的研究问题和方法，以符合他们的兴趣和情况。教学人员发挥了促进作用，帮助研究人员开发他们的项目，解决有关研究伦理和方法的问题，并在撰写过程中提供反馈和编辑帮助。大学资助使研究人员能够抵消研究成本，包括前往采访地点的旅行和参与该计划的机会成本。参与者可以灵活地设计自己的研究问题和方法，以符合他们的兴趣和情况。教学人员发挥了促进作用，帮助研究人员开发他们的项目，解决有关研究伦理和方法的问题，并在撰写过程中提供反馈和编辑帮助。大学资助使研究人员能够抵消研究成本，包括前往采访地点的旅行和参与该计划的机会成本。参与者可以灵活地设计自己的研究问题和方法，以符合他们的兴趣和情况。教学人员发挥了促进作用，帮助研究人员开发他们的项目，解决有关研究伦理和方法的问题，并在撰写过程中提供反馈和编辑帮助。大学资助使研究人员能够抵消研究成本，包括前往采访地点的旅行和参与该计划的机会成本。

学生研究人员提供了开创性的奖学金，有助于我们对人道主义组织、难民营地经历、东非移民路线等的集体理解（Omar，2022 年；Reed & Schenck，2023 年；  Teferra，  2022年 ）。但是，探究未知事物并回答对个人或社区具有紧迫重要性的问题的能力只是有意义的研究权的一部分。作为知识的传播者，更广泛的公众认真对待同样重要。这就提出了出版和传播的复杂问题。应该如何分享这项研究的结果？面向哪些公众？以什么形式？

虽然全球历史对话项目的任何部分都没有摆脱这种合作固有的不平等和权力不平衡，但事实证明，如何分享研究成果这些问题最为棘手。根据我们的背景、学术培训和专业领域，我们强调学术场所的传统出版形式，包括参考期刊和大学出版社。对于一些学生研究人员来说，通过基于社区的演讲接触当地观众或人道主义组织更为重要。认识到我们想象的历史知识生产的民主化是一个必须在实践中解决的过程，其中有许多挫折和错误的开始， 2021 年）。因此，在高度不平等的全球背景下成为研究人员的过程本身就成为一个探究场所，有望滋养和启发未来的这方面尝试（Wetzel 等人，2023 年 ）。

在该项目前两年的学生研究论文集《研究的权利》中，我们更详细地探讨了难民和移民学者对历史的理解所产生的丰富而重要的见解，以及深刻的挑战和紧张局势影响任何促进此类研究并将其带入更广泛对话的尝试，涉及学术界、受影响社区和人道主义从业者（Reed & Schenck，  2023). 仍有大量工作要做：我们在此描述的努力存在严重缺陷，并非旨在作为蓝图或模型。相反，我们希望通过就真正的研究权意味着什么展开对话——以及这是否是一个有助于思考知识生产和共享的框架——我们邀请尽可能广泛的公众加入我们的思考关于并解决严重的不平等现象，这些不平等现象深深地塑造了我们的世界以及我们理解和解释它的方式。