Introduction

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR 2019) has reported “the highest levels of displacement on record,” with 70.8 million people worldwide having been displaced, including 25.9 million refugees. Notably, the UNHCR’s estimation of refugee enrolment in higher education institutions (HEIs) increased from 1% in 2019 to 6% in 2023. The UNHCR is striving to increase this number to 15% by 2030—the “15by30 target” (UNHCR 2023). This emphasizes the importance of targeted support programs (see also United Nations 2019).

Before 2016, studies on tertiary education for refugees were sparse and usually based on “primarily exploratory, qualitative investigations with (sometimes very) small case numbers” (Berg et al. 2018, p. 82, translated from German). They highlighted some of the key challenges refugee students were facing in obtaining higher education, such as financial challenges (Stevenson and Willott 2007), the effect of traumatic experiences (Earnest et al. 2010), language proficiency (Shakya et al. 2010), interruptions and long breaks in their educational experiences (Morrice 2009), the lack of information (Stevenson and Willott 2007), and peer support in their communities (Joyce et al. 2010; Naidoo 2015). Along with growing social and practical interest, however, a growing body of academic literature has begun to investigate aspects of higher education for refugees.

Previous literature reviews have considered the state of research until early 2018 (Berg et al. 2018; Mangan and Winter 2017; Ramsay and Baker 2019), focused on specific groups, such as Syrian students in Germany (Ashour 2021) or women who experienced forced migration in resettlement contexts (Burke et al. 2023), or considered specific methods of teaching and learning, such as mobile learning applications for refugees (Drolia et al. 2020, 2022). To provide a comprehensive overview of the rapid changes in the field over recent years and provide suggestions and implications for further research, this integrative review (Torraco 2016) focuses on the academic literature on higher education for refugees published between January 2016 and December 2019. In particular, the relevance of studying for refugees and the challenges faced by both students and higher education institutions have been identified as central themes in academic publications in this emerging field of research. While the challenges highlighted in previous studies persist, the greater density and diversity of studies offer a more in-depth look at the complex and interconnected difficulties that refugee students experience.

In order to reach UNHCR’s 15by30 target, it will be necessary to not only address individual challenges for refugee students but also structural and institutional issues that create obstacles to their ability to access higher education (Baker and Irwin 2019; Luu and Blanco 2019; Berg 2020). Synthesizing findings from the research field can provide guidance for this. This integrative review thus contributes to the state of the research by providing a synopsis of the key challenges faced by both refugees that aim to enter and succeed in higher education, and higher education institutions that aim to develop and implement targeted support programs.

Regarding the terminology, the terms “refugee” and “asylum seeker” cover a broad variety of living situations in diverse personal, structural, and national contexts. Considering the different definitions and sampling criteria used in the studies reviewed, I generally refer to “refugee students,” meaning students in higher education or preparatory programs who have experienced forced international migration (regarding internally displaced scholars, see Oleksiyenko et al. 2020).

Method

This paper provides an integrative review (Torraco 2016) of the current literature on higher education for refugees. Because the body of literature has expanded rapidly since 2016, the narrow time frame is meant to survey recent developments in the field. This review is followed by a discussion of research gaps and a synthesis of open research questions and implications for further research. The following key questions structured the search and review process:

  • How has the field of research on higher education for refugees changed along with growing public and academic interest?

  • What are the central topics, results, and research questions that remain unaddressed?

  • How can further research build on and advance studies of higher education for refugees?

Literature research and selection criteria

The literature discussed in this review was identified and selected through several steps. The first step was to conduct a database search, which took place in May 2019. In addition to the large interdisciplinary database Scopus and the social science database GESIS, the following databases with an educational focus were searched: the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Education Source, and peDOCS. Based on combinations of English and German keywords, the search was narrowed to focus on peer-reviewed articles that had been published in or after 2016. Table 1 provides an overview of all keyword combinations.

Table 1 Keywords
Full size table

The second step was to conduct a similar search of additional databases, including Academia.edu, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate. Due to filter settings, this search was not limited to peer-reviewed articles. A final database search was conducted in January 2020.

For papers to be included in this review, they had to focus on study preparation or higher education for refugees. The first round of selection was based on the abstracts of the publications. I then excluded literature reviews on higher education for refugees and project reports. Ultimately, 104 journal articles, chapters, and books were included in this review. They will henceforth be referred to as “papers.” Table 2 provides a comprehensive overview of all the papers included. Furthermore, they are marked with asterisks in the reference list.

Table 2 Overview of reviewed literature
Full size table

Review

After the literature selection process, all papers were summarized to provide a preliminary overview of the material. During this step, I received crucial support from a group of students and Prof. Dr. Streitwieser, a fellow researcher in the field. The summaries were completed using a template I prepared, which included the following sections: topic, research question, location, relevance, methods, theoretical framework, and central findings. All summaries contained brief notes and selected quotations for all sections for which this was applicable.

I then familiarized myself with all papers and created a synoptic table to sort them according to their topic, method, sample, and regional focus. This “descriptive evaluation of each study” (Wright et al. 2007, p. 26) allowed for a general comparison of the literature. I aimed to survey the main characteristics of and issues in this newly emerging field to identify implications for further research. Throughout the review process, I discussed the papers’ results and quality with students and fellow researchers.

Results

All papers were sorted into descriptive categories, including their publication date, location, empirical method, sample, and main topics. Table 3 shows a notable increase in international publications from 2016 to 2019.

Table 3 Number of publications per year
Full size table

A comparison with previous literature reviews emphasizes this impression: Ramsay and Baker's (2019) discussion of 46 papers that were published between 1999 and early 2018 included 16 papers published in 2016–2018, in comparison to 30 papers published in the much longer period between 1999 and 2015. Berg et al. (2018) reviewed 34 empirical studies published between 1990 and early 2018. Seventeen of them were published in 2016–2018, in comparison to 17 papers published between 1990 and 2015.

International research before 2016 mostly focused on English-speaking countries, primarily Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA (Berg et al. 2018). Table 4 shows that—even though Australia and the USA remain among those with the most academic inquiry and output on higher education for refugees—the general regional focus has shifted.

Table 4 Regional Foci
Full size table

Before 2016, hardly any research had been conducted about refugee students in Germany. This has rapidly changed, with Germany now being the subject of the most country-specific studies in this review. This development seems to be closely related to the war in Syria, which caused a significant influx of new asylum applications in Germany, and the country’s rapid development of structural funding for refugee students. Parallel to this development, the publication numbers indicate increasing academic interest in refugee education in the countries neighbouring Syria, including Turkey and Jordan, and multi-country European studies.

The reviewed publications mainly focus on Europe, Australia, and North America (Canada and the USA). A few papers, however, also take Asian and African countries into account. Strikingly, the search produced no papers investigating the situation of refugee students in either South or Central American countries. In this context, it must be noted that the regional focus of the studies identified was surely influenced by the limitation of using only English and German keywords in my search. However, as many journals ask authors to provide English keywords even if they publish in a different language, one could assume that the search would produce multilingual results. Out of all the publications included, eight were published in German. Two were methodological, while six presented the results of empirical research (five studies conducted in Germany, and one in Austria).

Of the 104 papers included in this integrative review, 80 presented the results of empirical studies. The majority (59) were qualitative studies. Ten studies used mixed methods and nine were based on quantitative or standardized research designs. I was unable to classify the methods used in two of the empirical studies as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods due to their contradictory or partial methods sections. Often, the studies presented relatively small samples or case studies of individual support programs, including very small quantitative sample sizes.

There are several possible reasons why qualitative and small-sample studies were common. First, considering the rather small body of previous research, it stands to reason that research projects would either focus on or start with explorative studies to gather the first empirical evidence in the field. Second, programs for refugee students are often HEI-specific and not part of a coordinated national or international approach. Thus, even if all participants of a specific program are included, the sample size might still be limited. Third, identifying and reaching the target population outside of specific support programs poses serious difficulties for researchers. Finally, little quantitative information is available for further analysis because refugees are usually not identifiable in surveys and HEIs do not always provide specific information on them. As Streitwieser and Brück (2018) have pointed out, in the German context, no data is collected on the legal status of enrolled students.

Seven papers were categorized as conceptual, which I understand as drawing on or developing a theoretical framework to discuss a topic (Callahan 2010). Furthermore, seven papers were categorized as desk research. They provided policy overviews or project descriptions with no mention or description of empirical methods. Seven other papers presented descriptions and discussions of individual support programs. Finally, four papers introduced methodological implications or frameworks for research on and with refugee students.

Similar to previous publications (Berg et al. 2018), the main topics of most of the papers I reviewed were the situations and experiences of refugee students, institutional contexts, the challenges faced by and support available for refugee students, and the evaluation of these support programs. As the challenges faced by refugee students appear to be the leading topic in the field, I will discuss them in more detail below. Eight of the papers addressed higher education in refugee camps and six focused on online education. Finally, it should be noted that most of the research took the perspective of refugees into account. Of the 80 empirical studies, 60 either solely focused on (38) or included the perspectives of refugees (22) as part of mixed samples. This can be related to researchers’ strong demand to take forced migrants’ first-hand experiences into account (Baker et al. 2019; Berg et al 2019a, 2019b; Reimer et al. 2019).

Similar to Ramsay and Baker's (2019) review of the literature published before early 2018, many of the papers discussed in this review can be placed in the broader field of education studies. In this area, the papers contributed to a wide range of topics such as the recognition of foreign degrees (Dunwoodie et al. 2020), program evaluation, academic culture (Baker and Irwin 2019), language proficiency (Nayton et al. 2019; Park 2019), internationalization (Streitwieser 2019; Berg 2018), equity, inclusion, and widening participation. These studies often focused on the perspectives of refugee students but also included higher education practitioners (Streitwieser et al. 2018a), domestic and international fellow students (Ergin 2016; Grüttner 2019), teachers (Schröder et al. 2019), policymakers (Jungblut et al. 2018; Toker 2019), NGO members (Nayton et al. 2019), and policy analysts (Unangst 2019).

The relevance of support for refugee students

Academia, like freedom, is indivisible. It is enriched by diversity, and so long as some are excluded, all are restricted. How citizenship in the academic space is perceived and experienced is, therefore, a complex and urgent political concern. (Rowe et al. 2016, p. 68)

Many authors insisted that there is a moral and social obligation to provide higher education opportunities for refugees (Abamosa et al. 2019, p. 13; Lenette 2016) and referred to education as a human right (Naylor et al. 2019). They expected a number of benefits from providing this support on the social, institutional, and individual levels.

On a social level, higher education is a crucial enabler of the integration of refugees (Marcu 2018, p. 18). Furthermore, Rasheed and Munoz referred to it as a method of “peacebuilding” (2016, p. 172), and Avery and Said (2017) argued that it helped prevent radicalization. In the long term, educated refugees were understood to be important actors who could “support their communities in exile and contribute to the future development of their home countries” (Avery and Said 2017, p. 107).

On an institutional level, refugees were sometimes understood to support the internationalization of HEIs (Abamosa et al. 2019; Berg 2018; Streitwieser 2019) and enrich their cultural diversity (Theuerl 2016, p. 178; Unger-Ullmann 2017, p. 5). By orienting themselves to the needs of refugee students, newly implemented support programs were seen to provide a chance for HEIs to “re-assess the ways in which students can engage and how they can give value to the skills brought by the prospective students” (Sontag 2018, p. 542).

On an individual level, higher education was described as empowering refugees (Crea 2016, p. 19), supporting their sense of belonging, psychological well-being (Al-Rousan et al. 2018; Bajwa et al. 2019; Grüttner 2019), and self-esteem (Bajwa et al. 2018, p. 120), and helping them overcome trauma (Maringe et al. 2017). Finally, participation in higher education programs can be seen as “an act of resistance itself” (Villegas and Aberman 2019, p. 79), which allows refugee students to defy stereotypes and negative ascriptions (Harvey and Mallman 2019, p. 663f.).

Refugee students were found to be highly motivated to participate in higher education. They were often described as expecting their situations to improve (Schneider 2018) and seeing higher education as a facilitator of positive individual development and a social participation, as a chance give back to their communities (Crea 2016, p. 19), or repay the support they received in their host countries (Hirsch and Maylea 2016, p. 23).

Overall, researchers have claimed that higher education can potentially "yield better settlement outcomes for refugees to increase social cohesion and, more importantly, help redress some of the personal and social disadvantages and the detrimental public discourse" (Lenette 2016, p. 2). By providing trustworthy environments and spaces for exchange (Villegas and Aberman 2019, p. 77) and thereby “humanising” (Fleay et al., 2019, p. 187) refugees, HEIs can support refugees in building agency, developing critical thinking, and reflecting on their own positions, thereby counteracting social exclusion and marginalization (Avery and Said 2017; Bajwa et al. 2018; Fleay et al. 2019; Lenette 2016).

Challenges for refugee students

Similar to publications before 2016, the main research interests of the reviewed studies included challenges for refugee students.

The main challenges identified throughout the papers included language proficiency (Akbasli and Mavi 2019, p. 10; Harvey and Mallman 2019; Park 2019), the accessibility of information (Baker et al. 2017), finances (AbduRazak et al. 2019, p. 176; Baker et al. 2017; Sheikh et al. 2019, p. 15), housing in stressful environments and/or remote areas (Akbasli and Mavi 2019; Schammann and Younso 2017, p. 13), difficulties with the acknowledgement of credentials, and issues of mental health. Furthermore, family obligations (Perry and Mallozzi 2017, p. 511), social isolation, discrimination, acculturation to a new learning environment, legal issues, disrupted educational experiences, and institutional settings inhibited refugees’ access to and success in higher education.

Some authors also argued that cultural differences slowed social and academic integration (Karipek 2017, p. 125; Tamrat and Habtemariam 2019, p. 134). In this context, gendered expectations caused additional hurdles, especially for women (Crea and Sparnon 2017, p. 17; Perry and Mallozzi 2017, p. 496). Even though many of the challenges discussed have been pointed out in previous studies (Berg et al 2018), the great number of new studies creates a more nuanced understanding of the situation of refugee students. It also allows the analysis to avoid exclusively focusing on deficits and include the capabilities and strengths of refugee students.

Several studies investigated the mental health and well-being of refugee students. Mental health challenges stem from both pre- and post-migration phases (Jack et al. 2019, p. 62) or unclear prospects (Crea 2016, p. 19), and can result in a lack of stability, increased vulnerability, and inhibited academic performance (Erdoğan and Erdoğan 2018, p. 275; Sheikh et al. 2019, 9; 14). Mental health issues and the various time-consuming challenges that prevent quick integration and participation in the host country created a feeling of lost time (Baker et al. 2019b, p. 11). This can frustrate and potentially demoralize refugee students. Furthermore, the non-acknowledgement of their previous knowledge and education (Baker and Irwin 2019; Jack et al. 2019; Sheikh et al. 2019), on the one hand, and social isolation and discrimination, on the other hand (Harvey and Mallman 2019; Molla 2019; Villegas and Aberman 2019), caused the feeling of low self-esteem (Park 2019, p. 7; Tamrat and Habtemariam 2019, p. 134). Based on quantitative survey data, Grüttner (2019) showed that.

mechanisms of social exclusion can hamper learning and study preparation success and thereby threaten the academic careers of international students and integration strategies of refugee students. Personal resources of resilience like resilient coping can strengthen feelings of belonging against the backdrop of perceived xenophobia. (p. 42)

The intersectional challenges faced by refugee students do not only limit their access to traditional higher education. Six of the reviewed papers specifically dealt with online courses for refugee students (Brunton et al. 2017; Crea and Sparnon 2017; Halkic and Arnold 2019; Muñoz et al. 2018; Reinhardt et al. 2018; Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al. 2018). Generally, online courses were seen as a potential solution for learners due to being cheaper, more flexible, and independent from the availability of local tertiary education (Crea and Sparnon 2017; Muñoz et al. 2018). However, the studies showed low completion rates (Halkic and Arnold 2019) and pointed out that the challenges of accessing higher education in general (e.g., language barriers, finances, housing, time management) also impacted refugee students’ ability to participate in online education (Brunton et al. 2017, p. 17f.; Halkic and Arnold 2019, p. 17).

Finally, the “diversity of the target groups” (Halkic and Arnold 2019, p. 17) caused difficulties in creating online education offers that fit the diverse backgrounds and needs of the population (Reinhardt et al. 2018, p. 217f.; Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al. 2018, p. 171). Therefore, online courses were, rather, seen as a helpful tool to “form realistic expectations about higher education study” (Brunton et al. 2017, p. 17) and potentially “improve prospective flexible learners’ preparation for higher education study through the provision of active developmental supports, early in the study life cycle” (Halkic and Arnold 2019, p. 17). However, to foster long-lasting solutions, individual, institutional, and structural challenges need to be addressed and overcome.

Institutional challenges for refugee students

Recent studies have also increasingly investigated institutional settings that add to refugees’ challenges in entering and obtaining higher education in three ways.

First, challenges in entering and obtaining higher education are enhanced by unclear or absent higher education policies for refugees. This places the responsibility on individual institutions (Villegas and Aberman 2019, p. 73) and creates a confusing situation. Furthermore, in some cases, refugee policies were “focused primarily on workforce development and career training, rather than on the academic track of post-secondary education” (Luu and Blanco 2019, p. 9).

Second, repressive asylum policies and the multisector entanglement of higher education, welfare, legal, and asylum policies create challenges for refugees because “these areas need to be taken into account simultaneously, but what is more challenging is that they are often not well in tune with one another” (Schammann and Younso 2017; Sontag 2019, p. 72; Détourbe and Goastellec 2018; Klaus 2020).

Third, HEIs’ unawareness or ignorance of refugees can result in unfitting institutional contexts. This includes the “[a]voidance of the notion of refugees” (Maringe et al. 2017, p. 6) and the “[a]bsence of a culture of care and support [in an] academic environment [that] is built around notions of the survival of the fittest” (ibid.). Institutional rules and regulations about university transition are based on assumptions about students, cultural capital, language proficiency (Park 2019, p. 8), aspirations, linear life courses, and knowledge of academic practices and education systems (Baker and Irwin 2019; Stevenson and Baker 2018, p. 96f.). This results in institutional environments that do not consider and therefore do not or cannot adequately address the backgrounds, experiences, and needs of refugee students.

To give an example, some HEIs offer refugees guest access to their classes. This is meant to provide them with insight into academic practices and language. However, studies have found that refugee students have little interest in programs without official degrees (Crea and Sparnon 2017, p. 15; Schammann and Younso 2017). Klaus (2020, p. 136) described this as a quick solution, not a serious endeavor to fully include refugee students in academic life.

Challenges for institutions

Even though research on members of HEIs, including students and staff, has found that they generally have a robust motivation to support refugees, some studies have argued that HEIs themselves face structural challenges when trying to provide such support. They often lack trained staff and have difficulties finding enough specialists (Maringe et al. 2017), such as competent language teachers, instructors with intercultural training (Crea and Sparnon 2017), or qualified providers of psychological support (Steinhilber 2019), to address the complex and diverse needs of refugee students (Schröder et al. 2019, p. 72). Additionally, some papers described faculty members’ insecurities about how to address students who have experienced forced migration or deal with practical questions (e.g., determining the validity of documents; Schammann and Younso 2017, p. 12; Toker 2019; Lenette 2016).

The lack of information and guidelines is closely linked to political frameworks and the availability of policy solutions. Considering the situation in the USA, Luu and Blanco (2019) stated that “[t]he perspective on refugees espoused by the Trump Administration is symptomatic of a larger discourse that vilifies and dehumanises refugees” (p. 4). Political discourse and policy frameworks are of great importance to HEIs that aim to support refugee students because they determine the existence and availability of official guidelines, target group-specific policies (Abamosa et al. 2019, p. 4), policy solutions or suggestions about topics such as the acknowledgement of documents, and—last but not least—public funding. Public and non-profit HEIs, especially, have difficulty fully funding their programs, which makes public funding a crucial factor (Nayton et al. 2019).

Discussion and research implications

The amount of research and literature on tertiary education for refugees has grown massively, especially since 2016. In this review, I have discussed 104 papers, including 80 empirical studies, that were published between January 2016 and December 2019.

As in literature published before 2016, there is a primary focus on the challenges faced by refugee students and the majority of the papers are qualitative case studies or conceptual papers, emphasizing the importance of higher education opportunities for refugees (Shakya et al. 2010; Earnest et al. 2010; Joyce et al. 2010; Stevenson and Willott 2007). Nonetheless, a new focus on formal study preparation (Schröder et al. 2019), a slight increase in quantitative and mixed methods approaches, and the appearance of studies on new countries and regions all indicate the increasing importance of this research field and create a more nuanced picture.

It can be assumed that due to the narrow time frame considered, many of the studies were conducted simultaneously. In combination with the little previously published literature on the topic, this results in a somewhat repetitive body of work, with many studies focusing on challenges for refugee students. In the following section, I will summarize some potential open questions and research topics to further differentiate and substantiate this newly growing field.

Multi-level and multi-perspective studies

I recommend enhancing the growing methodological and theoretical diversity to create insights into various aspects, cases, and perspectives. This would include moving beyond (single) case studies and emphasizing comparative, multi-perspective, and multi-level studies. On the one hand, such research could investigate the premises and conditions of successful preparation for, access to, and participation in higher education for refugee students and identify expedient support strategies for various contexts that fit the needs and lived experiences of refugee students. Furthermore, such research could look into the broad activities of individual HEI staff members, students, or volunteers (Webb et al. 2019; Resch et al. 2021; Sevenson and Willott, 2007). It could develop strategies to understand the value of the knowledge they have obtained and preserve it, while also considering ways to formalize this support so it does not need to be offered on private time (Berg et al. 2022). On the other hand, it could enhance the understanding of the diverse living situations of refugees and the institutional contexts that shape them, thus broadening education research.

Beyond the deficit discourse

As Ramsay and Baker (2019) argue in their literature review, research on refugee students should “go beyond a lens of issues and problems” (p. 57). Similar points are made in the discussion sections of many of the reviewed papers. Still, relatively few works investigated the capital and knowledge refugees bring, which should be valued and thematized (Harvey and Mallman 2019; Shapiro 2018). Studies in this area could include the benefits HEI expect from supporting refugee students but should also critically investigate the norms, limits, and adaptability of academic culture (Baker and Irwin 2019), as well as ways to create agency for refugees (Grüttner et al. 2018).

Teaching and learning strategies

Several studies mention the use of unfamiliar teaching and learning styles as a challenge faced by refugee students. However, the studies reviewed do not further investigate the learning strategies that refugee students use. As Parkhouse et al. (2019) have pointed out, well-prepared teachers can be crucial for the success of students from marginalized communities. Higher education staff members, including counsellors and teachers, often show little diversity and are insufficiently qualified to deal with intercultural issues (Schammann and Younso 2017). Further research that aims to provide a more detailed understanding of refugees as academic learners (Ives and Castillo-Montoya, 2020) and teaching styles in intercultural higher education could have valuable strategical and practical implications, along the lines of Warriner et al. (2019) conceptual approach to teaching academic English in schools.

Organisational responses and contexts

Many studies around higher education for refugees investigate the experiences of refugee students (Bajwa et al. 2017; Joyce et al. 2010) or introduce, investigate, or evaluate case studies about higher education programs (Bacher et al., 2020; Naidoo 2015). However, very few apply organizational theory to understand institutional reactions and frameworks that shape the higher education system and, more specifically, programs for refugees (one exception is Webb et al. 2019). A closer investigation of institutional rationale, decision-making processes, and potential organizational changes could clarify the exact context of higher education for refugees. This could also include a more detailed investigation of concepts, aspects, and strategies related to integration and participation and how well they meet the needs of refugee students. Unangst and Crea (2020) introduced an approach to bridge the contrast between subjective identities and generalized support programs: Intersectional programmes could consider a variety of intersectional identity markers to offer a range of supports. Additionally, as not all endeavours to support refugee students originate from HEIs, it seems important to investigate all relevant public and private institutions, their actions, and their objectives. This could present interesting overlaps with studies of civic engagement.

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic

As the world adapts to the “new normal,” it becomes increasingly clear that the Covid-19 pandemic not only affected all aspects of everyday life, including higher education, but also exacerbated the situation of at-risk populations globally. Further research will need to consider and measure the impact of the pandemic, including its consequences for refugee education. In different contexts, different outcomes can be expected, from backlash to questions of survival to a shift towards online education. The outcomes for (student) mobility, migration, social security, the organization of higher education, and many other factors that influence refugee (higher) education have yet to be determined.