Access and Aspirations: Syrian Refugees’ Experiences of Entering Higher Education in Germany

Abstract

Despite high educational aspirations amongst asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs), scholarship on international student migration and mobility commonly lacks insight deriving from forced migration research. Drawing on qualitative research concerned with Syrian ASRs’ educational aspirations and lived experiences regarding higher education access in Germany, this article speaks to the intersection of refugee and education politics. German Higher Education Institutions commonly subsume ASRs under the more general admission classification of “international students”. While an intentional blindness of the background of non-European Union students in the admission procedure is justified on the grounds of equal treatment, findings indicate that ASRs experience the disregard for their distinct struggles as particularly stifling and disillusioning. At the same time, an analysis of the symbolic significance young ASRs attribute to the student status suggests that educational aspirations are shaped by the prospect to “raise” one’s migration status and identity to that of international students.

Introduction

On 23 June 2015, the German government surprisingly decided to suspend the Dublin regulation according to which asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs) are required to direct their applications to the European Union (EU) state they had first entered with respect to Syrian refugees. Although the suspension was mostly temporary, Germany’s ignorance for the procedures of the Common European Asylum System can be considered as a proactive shift in asylum policies and practices: it signifies a welcoming and supportive attitude towards those whose lives were disrupted by violence and conflict and demonstrates the German government’s objective to assume a leading and pioneering role in EU asylum regulation. With asylum applicants from Syria exceeding 300,000, Germany is currently one of Europe’s top receiving countries (Migration Policy Centre, 2016). However, beyond this political trajectory and government efforts, many practical questions about providing the welfare and opportunities for those with histories of forced migration remain largely unanswered.

It has been indicated that amongst the high increases of forcibly displaced people since 2011, there is a particularly large number of Syrians aged 15–24 “whose higher education, professional development, and technical training has been disrupted as a result of the violence and general deterioration of Syria’s high schools, its public and private universities” (Watenpaugh et al., 2014: 9). We may therefore anticipate that many individuals hope to pursue higher education (HE) in host countries. In fact, findings across countries such as Canada, the UK, the US, Lebanon and Jordan repeatedly emphasise that refugees strongly desire to access higher education institutions (HEIs) (Elwyn et al., 2011; O’Toole and Doyle, 2013; Shakya et al., 2010; Stevenson and Willott, 2007Watenpaugh et al., 2013, 2014). Amongst those refugees who have completed secondary school, studies found “an almost universal desire to attend university” (Women’s Refugee Commission, 2009 as cited in Dryden-Peterson and Giles, 2010: 4). Initial explorations into recent refugee demographics in Germany reveal that especially young adult Syrian nationals’ educational biographies are highly advanced in relation to refugee populations from other countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Eritrea or Somalia (Brücker et al., 2016). This can be attributed to the fact that until the outbreak of the civil war in March 2011, Syria had a functioning system of education that allowed roughly 26% of urban and 17% of rural Syrians to benefit from some form of HE (Watenpaugh et al., 2014: 9) with women making up more than half of the student population (Watenpaugh et al., 2013: 8).

The fact that forcibly displaced young adult Syrians are interested in, and likely to attempt, accessing HE has been confirmed by initial surveys (Brücker et al., 2016) and is acknowledged by German governing and HE institutions who have reiterated their commitment to “welcoming” refugee students (Deutscher Bundestag, 2016). Notably, in 2015, the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) made available a financing package of 100 million Euros for plans and initiatives that facilitate HE access for foreign nationals (Strate, 2016). As part of this package, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) has provided more than 200 scholarships to Syrian nationals seeking access to HEIs in Germany through its Leadership for Syria programme (DAAD, 2015: 21). Additionally, various German universities have established free guest student programmes, language study preparation courses and advisory services in order to facilitate access for ASRs (Schammann and Younso, 2016). It is thus evident that the education system in Germany is currently undergoing a range of transformations with a view to developing the structures and resources necessary to adequately accommodate an increasing number of young people who escaped precarious social and political contexts (Weiser, 2013). The present article is concerned with a discussion of the way in which Syrian ASRs experience and navigate Germanys’ HE landscape. Specifically, by drawing on findings deriving from a qualitative research project concerned with Syrian ASRs’ insights regarding the process of accessing HEIs in Germany, the article discusses the barriers young Syrians experience and the aspirations they develop, most notably in light of the prospect of obtaining the status of international students.

Literature review

This research project was formulated in response to the recognition that the pursuit of HE is a central dimension of the post-migration contexts that Syrian ASRs face in their host countries. As a result of the surge in the number of forcibly displaced people since 2011, high numbers of young adult ASRs are confronted with the necessity of adapting their professional futures and educational trajectories to radically new socio-geographical contexts (Migration Policy Centre, 2016). Based on the general indication that although high numbers of Syrian refugees in Germany wish to pursue HE, numbers of enrolment amongst this group appear to have so far remained notably low (Vogel and Schwikal, 2015), the present study sets out to explore more closely the factors that affect ASRs’ access to HEIs. Although there is an empirically grounded assumption that ASR applicants and students face a number of barriers and difficulties in accessing universities (Crea and McFarland, 2015; Elwyn et al., 2011; Ferede, 2010; Kanno and Varghese, 2010; Morrice, 2009; Zeus, 2011), empirical research lags behind current developments (Shakya et al., 2010): most of the “barriers” that were identified in public and policy discourses in Germany are based on anecdotal evidence offered by university staff members and politicians. Insight into the realities of access to HE for ASRs requires that these barriers are evaluated carefully and explored empirically.

In fact, researchers have long emphasised that access to HE in post-migration contexts of ASRs demands more scholarly attention: Ferede points out that insights into educational experiences of refugees are often “lost within the folds of aggregated educational research” and argues that because refugees’ experiences typically differ in important ways from those of voluntary immigrants, “educational research on refugees as an exclusive group is absolutely imperative” (Ferede, 2010: 2). Similarly, Shakya et al. describe empirical insights into the relationship between forced migration and educational experiences of refugees as “thin, particularly in the context of resettlement nations in the Global North” and outlines a “pressing research and policy need […] to better understand and overcome post-migration educational gaps and challenges that refugees face” (Shakya et al., 2010: 68). The present study aims to address this substantive gap by contributing to our understanding of ASRs as a distinctive social group whose idiosyncratic experiences have a bearing on how they encounter and engage with HEIs in host countries.

Factors affecting access to HE and their implications for Syrian ASRs in Germany

It has widely been emphasised that forced migration limits and disrupts educational access and achievements (Dankova and Giner, 2011; Dryden-Peterson and Giles, 2010). Refugees’ living contexts in host countries usually diverge drastically from the “typical” circumstances of those targeted by educational offers of HEIs (Vogel and Schwikal, 2015). Schammann and Younso (2016) have emphasised that difficulties and barriers faced by refugees intending to access German HEIs have only begun to receive increased political and scholarly attention since the high increase in ASRs’ numbers in 2015. In light of the absence of empirical explorations concerned with current life conditions of Syrian ASRs in Germany, the following section assembles and critically reviews relevant literature on the factors that likely affect refugees’ access to HE.

Studies focussed on students with ASR backgrounds in the US revealed that language barriers were a central factor that constrained their participation in HE (Kanno and Varghese, 2010). This was equally noted by studies conducted with ASRs in the UK (Elwyn et al., 2011; Stevenson and Willott, 2007) and has further been stressed by refugee aid agencies in Germany (Vogel and Schwikal, 2015). It was particularly noted that the fulfilling of formal university language requirements is often a costly endeavour that refugees have to pay out of their own pockets and usually cannot afford (Elwyn et al., 2011). Under current regulations, however, recognised refugees in Germany are legally entitled to free language courses (Deutscher Bundestag, 2016). However, ASRs who have not yet been granted formal refugee status in Germany must rely on courses offered on a volunteering basis by HEIs and refugee organisations – the availability of which varies significantly across regions (Brücker et al., 2016). Furthermore, Schammann and Younso (2016) explain that even though language courses are theoretically free for recognised refugees, job centres typically only pay for courses up to B1 level, while most HEIs in Germany demand German competence at B2 or C1 level for admissions. ¹ As emphasised by Vogel and Schwikal (2015), these language requirements even apply to courses offered in English because university degree qualifications in Germany are typically regarded as evidence for fluency in German. This study thus anticipates that despite the provision of a range of free language learning opportunities, fulfilling the language admissions requirement continues to be associated with additional costs and difficulties for Syrian ASRs in Germany.

An additional factor that is likely to intersect with the language requirements to constrain access to HEIs is the fact that refugees typically suffer from financial instability and poverty and are therefore more vulnerable to being deterred by comparatively small costs associated with the admissions process, such as administrative fees and public transport expenses (Watenpaugh et al., 2014). In fact, in their study on educational opportunities of refugees in the UK, O’Toole and Doyle found that the relative poverty faced by ASRs often exceeds those of other marginalised groups. They emphasise that “basic needs such as food, housing and healthcare […] need to be met before the educational needs are addressed” (O’Toole and Doyle, 2013: 6). Watenpaugh et al.’s research into the living contexts of Syrian ASR students in Lebanon emphasises that socio-economic conditions were so dire that many of the students they met “appeared barely able to both study and survive” (Watenpaugh et al., 2014: 23). The fact that the pursuit of HE involves a range of additional costs means that across the world, ASRs are usually only able to pursue education with financial support of their families and host countries (Anselme and Hands, 2010). Research indicates that the factors that lead to and perpetuate such precarious living situations are varied and intersectional; they relate to the fact that ASRs are often subject to legal limitations on work and therefore lack a stable source of income, they have trouble finding permanent and safe living arrangements (Watenpaugh et al., 2014) and state-supplied accommodation centres are often restricted and located in areas where residents have limited opportunities of accessing workplaces, language courses or job centres. In conformity with Article 26 of the Geneva Convention, refugees in Germany are not subject to detainment; however, allowances and support by social services are often conditional upon residency restrictions (Schammann and Younso, 2016), which means that unless workplaces or universities are located within the commuting area of their residence, refugees may have difficulty accessing these institutions. An additional factor that likely affects the financial circumstances of Syrian nationals abroad is the devaluation of the Syrian pound (Watenpaugh et al., 2014). It should be noted that the German government is ostensibly aware of the fact that precarious financial conditions affect ASRs’ living conditions and has since the onset of the refugee crisis mobilised a range of resources to address these issues. For example, in August 2014, the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social affairs amended “Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz” (Asylum Seekers Benefits Act) in order to increase the welfare benefits for ASRs (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales, 2014).

A related constraint to ASRs’ participation in HE repeatedly emphasised by the literature are student fees, which tend to be comparatively high for foreign nationals (Elwyn et al., 2011; Gladwell, 2011; Stevenson and Willott, 2007). While the fees and costs associated with studying have been shown to constitute a significant barrier to the completion of university studies by ASRs across countries (Watenpaugh et al., 2014), German public HEIs do not charge tuition. However, Vogel and Schwikal point out that even comparatively low expenses including obligatory semester contributions, public transport and administrative fees in the application process simply exceed the financial resources of young adult refugees and may thus act as a deterrent (Vogel and Schwikal 2015: 5).

The ASR applicants furthermore appear to struggle to meet common formal entry requirements of HEIs in their host countries. For example, Watenpaugh et al.’s (2013) study reveals that Syrian refugees who attempt to access university in Jordan often lack certified transcripts and official documents that attest the level of education they have completed. This has also been noted by university admissions offices and refugee support services in Germany (Hommerich, 2015). German HE admissions policies currently allow that in cases where evidence of formal qualifications is deemed insufficient for a course of study, applicants sit admissions examinations. While entry examinations are theoretically designed to facilitate access, it has been pointed out that in practice, these examinations are very demanding, require a fluent command of the German language and extensive amounts of motivation, work and resilience (Mucke, 1997; Kreitz and Otten, 2000 as referenced by Vogel and Schwikal, 2015). Additionally, those who have already gained full or partial qualifications in Syria are often confronted with the reality that German universities do not recognise these qualifications and therefore typically require that applicants repeat courses. This, as observed in the case of Syrian ASRs in Jordan, likely causes frustration and discouragement (Watenpaugh et al., 2013). Instances of misrecognition are amplified by the fact that due to German federalism, the recognition of foreign qualifications varies across the different Länder (Borgwardt et al., 2015). Additionally, because popular subjects of study are highly competitive, German universities often set out a minimum grade point average (numerus clausus) as an entry requirement. This, of course, limits not only ASRs’ but all applicants’ possibility of pursuing their chosen course of study. Arguably, however, because of the above-mentioned variance regarding the recognition of qualifications gained in Syria, we may expect ASRs to be even more adversely affected by these strict criteria. Furthermore, popular courses in Germany often limit their intake of non-EU students to quotas of between 5% and 7% (Schammann and Younso, 2016), which presumably enhances the level of competition Syrian ASRs face (Borgwardt, 2016).

The German HE landscape is often described as a “bureaucratic maze” (Brenner, 2007; Bührmann, 2008; Meier and Pfeiffer, 2010 and thus presumably very difficult to navigate for those who lack familiarity and language skills. Refugee support organisations and policy-makers in Germany notably anticipate this problem in relation to Syrian ASRs (Kultusministerkonferenz, 2015; Vogel and Schwikal, 2015), but it has also been pointed out that the bureaucratic complexity of HE in Germany presents difficulties to all applicants – including German nationals – and that the necessity of establishing adequate student advisory services is a larger issue within education policy that exceeds the refugee issue (Schindler, 2012; Vogel and Schwikal, 2015. On the basis of the current body of literature that concerns itself with the situation of ASR students and applicants, we must assume that young adult Syrians who intend to pursue HE in Germany are disproportionally affected by the complexity of the application process because they lack the financial and information resources and social support to manoeuvre bureaucratic hurdles (Gateley, 2015a; Morrice, 2009; Stevenson and Willott, 2007). However, in order to understand more precisely which information resources are available to young adult ASRs in Germany and which kinds of information they struggle to access, we must take into account their own perspectives.

Exploring the perspective of insiders: a focus on aspirations

In order to explore the perspectives of young adult Syrian ASRs on the application process, research orientation and design must allow for their voices, understandings and experiences to be conveyed (Del Soto, 2008; Eastmond, 2007; Jacobsen and Landau, 2003; Keddie, 2012; Pavlish, 2007; Voutira and Dona, 2007; Zwi et al., 2006 ). In educational research, a concept commonly employed to assess subjective attitudes of learners is that of “aspirations”. This is based on the notion that some form of individual aspiring is required in prompting the process of accessing HE in the first place. Aspirations have thus long been framed as determinants of educational success and as indicators of cultural capital (Anderson and Maassen, 2014; Gale and Parker, 2015; Hart, 2013; Zipin et al., 2013). By extension, the lack of aspirations has itself been conceptualised as a barrier to HE access (Bradley et al., 2008; Sellar et al., 2011) and has increasingly been targeted by education policy initiatives that seek to widen participation to students from disadvantaged backgrounds by encouraging aspirations (Sellar et al., 2011). However, as stated by Bok (2010), a detrimental consequence of this shift of attention towards enhancing aspirations is that other barriers and inequalities in access to HE increasingly are overlooked. In the context of neoliberal discourses on education, the concept of aspirations provides a convenient way of shifting the responsibility for a lack of achievement to individuals rather than acknowledging the force of structural inequality (Tyler and Bennett, 2015; Unterhalter et al., 2014 ). Social theorists have long emphasised how shared desires and aspirations, most notably epitomised by the “American dream” narrative of individual success (Johnson, 2006; McNamee and Miller, 2004) contribute to a certain ideology that encourages conformity and benefits dominant social groups (Adorno and Crook, 1994; Arrow et al., 2000; Bauman, 1998; Geuss, 1981; Marcuse, 1964). In fact, empirical research has revealed that young people from disadvantaged communities often do aspire to access HE (Bowden and Doughney, 2010; Prosser et al., 2008), but struggle to achieve educational success due to the factors mentioned above (Bok, 2010). As pointed out earlier, this has particularly been noted in relation to ASRs (Brücker et al., 2016; Dryden-Peterson and Giles, 2010; Elwyn et al., 2011; O’Toole and Doyle, 2013; Shakya et al., 2010; Stevenson and Willott, 2007; Women’s Refugee Commission, 2009; ). On the other hand, various other studies including ASR student participants note that individuals often remain ambitious and resilient despite encountering extensive hurdles, misrecognition and a general lack of support in gaining access to HEIs (Elwyn et al., 2011; O’Toole and Doyle, 2013; Stevenson and Willott, 2007). Such contradictory findings resonate with Hart’s observation that “aspirations may be born of ambition or optimism but also out of pessimism, frustration and the need to escape a present way of life” (Hart, 2016: 5). This implies that aspiring must be viewed as a continuous interpretative process that is susceptible to social and cultural influences (Ray, 2006).

A central contribution to the study of educational access that relies on this more dynamic notion of aspirations is Appadurai’s definition of aspirations as navigational maps (Appadurai, 2004). Specifically, Appadurai characterises individuals’ abilities to translate abstract objectives into feasible plans and strategies – what he terms the capacity to aspire – as “the ability to read a map of a journey into the future” (Appadurai, 2004: 76). His approach accounts for the fact that while fundamental human objectives like health, prosperity and professional success may be common across all social groups, those who lack access to the required financial resources, information and social networks may be pressured to align their concrete expectations with the limitations of their possibilities. As a consequence, they may suffer from what Appadurai describes as “more brittle horizon of aspirations” (Appadurai, 2004: 69). Aspirations, from this perspective, are approached as “cultural categories” that “are formed in interaction and in the thick of social life” (Appadurai, 2004: 67; Bok, 2010: 163); they are an expression of individuals’ cultural histories and their classed and gendered identities (Hart, 2016: 13), but they are also responsive to changing social, geographical and economic contexts (Bok, 2010). An approach to educational aspirations as a navigational capacity functions as a lens through which barriers and obstacles in the pursuit of HE are rendered visible. Additionally, a closer consideration of individuals’ navigational maps reveals the agency, creativity and resilience with which individuals engage with and navigate the obstacles they encounter (Gale and Parker, 2015; Naidoo, 2014). Situating explorations of ASRs’ perspectives on factors affecting access within broader “aspirational maps of the future” recognises ASRs as agents who can contribute and shape their social contexts. This implicitly challenges the “narrative of refugees as passive victims” (Zeus, 2011: 270 as cited in Naidoo, 2014: 110) of the educational barriers they face. Zipin indicates that nuanced considerations of aspirations beyond the dichotomies of “high” and “low” (Bok, 2010: 176) allow insight into “multiple social–cultural resources, including policy and populist ideologies, but also family and community histories and the lived-cultural agency of people in the present” (Zipin et al., 2013). Hence, a focus on aspirations is likely to yield rich insights into the perspectives of Syrian ASRs on the educational barriers and pathways they face. Exploring whether and how educational aspirations have persisted or changed may enhance our currently limited understanding of how factors associated with experiences of forced migration, as well as post-migration contexts, affect educational trajectories in host countries (Shakya et al., 2010).

Study details

Epistemological paradigm: social constructivism

The study is concerned with gaining insight into the nature and context of young adult Syrian ASRs’ perspective on the factors that have affected the process of accessing HE. In this sense, this study approaches social realities “in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000: 3). While informed by the findings of previous studies concerning refugee students’ access, this research does not attempt to test hypotheses. Rather, it aims to generate thick, nuanced accounts of experiences, understandings and opinions that allow for empirically grounded interpretations of how young Syrian ASRs encounter the German HE landscape. This research objective is situated within a social constructivist paradigm; it presupposes that the social phenomena it seeks to inquire are inextricably interwoven with human interpretations and are therefore mutable and context-specific (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). The context of HE for Syrian refugees that is explored in the present research project is part of a set of ‘lived experiences’ (Eastmond, 2007: 249; Ritchie and Lewis, 2003: 7). My research objective of providing an understanding –Verstehen (Dilthey, 1927) – of a complex social scenario led me to develop and generate propositions and interpretations inductively (Creswell, 2007; Ritchie and Lewis, 2003).

Research design and method: qualitative, semi-structured interviews

In the spring of 2016, I conducted 15 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with young Syrian ASRs, as well as three semi-structured interviews with university admissions staff members and one with a social worker at the local non-governmental organisation (NGO) Flüchtlinge Willkommen. The interviews with university staff members and with the social worker were conducted in early March and primarily served the purpose of preparing myself for the interviews with ASR participants, which were the focus of this study. In particular, interviews with professionals in the field allowed me to confirm the accuracy of the knowledge I had gained about legal regulations pertaining to student refugees and to the university application process, and to test and reflect on my interview schedule (Gill et al., 2008; Gorard, 2003; Kennedy, 2006; Quinian, 2011). For the recruitment of ASR participants, I approached the communities of people I had met in the context of my previous work as a volunteer and language instructor in two different refugee centres near my hometown. By relying on these communities as gatekeepers, I was able to establish personal contact with young adult Syrians who had expressed an interest in accessing HE in Germany and with a social worker at a local NGO. I furthermore relied on the professional participants of my first four interviews to pass on my contact details to individuals they considered fitting the study’s criteria. Additionally, I used snowballing to identify and establish contact with further potential participants.

Ethical considerations

Informed consent and privacy

Following the approval of my research project by the Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee (CUREC), I collected my data in accordance with Oxford University Ethical Guidelines (CUREC, 2016) and with German privacy and data protection laws. Before every interview, voluntary informed written consent was obtained from each participant. While the interviews were conducted in English and German, I provided consent forms and information sheets in German and English, as well as Arabic. It was iterated to participants that they did not have to answer questions they did not wish to respond to and that they could exit the interview at any time (Gateley, 2015b). Given linguistic barriers, I made sure to use plain language and provided additional verbal explanations where needed. Before each interview, I took time to ensure that participants were sufficiently informed about the aims of the study, about my motivation for this research project and about their role in the research process so that they were able to assess “the risks and benefits associated with participating” (Howe and Moses, 1999: 24). Despite my efforts, there was one case where I was not entirely confident that my participant had understood the consent and information forms. In that case, I abstained from conducting the interview. In accordance with § 40 (2) Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, I anonymised personal information as far as possible. In recognising the agency of my participants, I invited them to choose their own pseudonyms.

Refugees – a vulnerable research group?

The Oxford CUREC categorises research with refugees as “ethically, emotionally or politically sensitive” (CUREC, 2015). It is further stated that “if research subjects are […] vulnerable, e.g. asylum seekers, persecuted groups […] a full ethics approval process is normally needed”. There is general agreement that violent and traumatic experiences are endemic to experiences of forced migration and therefore require the particular consideration of researchers (Block et al., 2013; Gateley, 2015a). At the same time, the strong emphasis on vulnerability in research involving refugees and other marginalised groups has been criticised for the reduction of refugees as passive. It particularly fails to sufficiently acknowledge the agency, strength and resilience of individuals (Gateley, 2015b; London, 2002; Macfarlane et al., 2000; O’Higgins, 2012; Zwi et al., 2006).

Furthermore, in order to avoid the exploitation of participants’ time and experiences for the researcher’s benefits, it has become customary in the field of forced migration research that researchers recognise “an obligation to design and conduct research projects that aim to bring about reciprocal benefits for refugee participants and/or communities” (Mackenzie et al., 2007: 300). After conducting the interview, I offered all ASR participants to assist them individually in collecting information about access to HE and, to the best of my abilities, helping them with applications. Out of the 15 ASRs I interviewed, 9 individuals took me up on my offer.

Qualitative trustworthiness

Within the constructivist approaches that frame qualitative research, the necessity of “using the self […] to communicate with people to create stories” (Nunkoosing, 2005: 698) is widely acknowledged. Here, the researcher necessarily functions as “the primary instrument for data collection and analysis” (Kvale, 1996; Marshall and Rossman, 1989; Merriam, 2009; 14; Patton, 2002: 14; Rubin and Rubin, 2005; Thompson, 2000). This means that qualitative research designs are inevitably susceptible to researcher biases. Thus, to achieve trustworthiness of findings, researchers are obliged to critically reflect on and disclose the way their own identity and values are framing the research progress (Cassell, 2005; Yow, 2005).

Research pertaining to politically sensitive topics and marginalised social groups typically invites the charge of “advocacy research” (Jacobsen and Landau, 2003 as referenced by Gateley, 2015a; Gilbert, 1997). Whether a researcher’s political orientation counts as an undue influence in social-scientific research remains debated. Although objectivity and value-neutrality are typically encouraged (Anderson, 1990), many acknowledge that especially qualitative research can never be value free and that researchers should therefore openly disclose and reflexively engage with their motivations (Howe and Moses, 1999). My own opinion that experiences of forced migration remain insufficiently addressed by governments, educational institutions and researchers has certainly provided an impetus for the present study. It has also inspired the research focus on how ASR participants exert agency by exploring their views, perceptions and attitudes towards HE access.

Findings and discussion: factors affecting access and aspiration

This section provides insight into some of the findings that are structured around the two main research objectives of exploring ASRs’ perspective on factors that affected the process of HE access and the nature of their educational aspirations. Themes raised include the participants’ views on the central factors that limit HE access, the lack of formal recognition they receive for both their previous achievements and for the constraints of their post-migration living situation, and their views on being categorised as “international students” in German HE admissions processes. Furthermore, this section presents some of the insights on the reasons that inform the aspiration of accessing HEIs.

Central factors affecting access: “Deutsch können” ²

As anticipated, the factors my literature review drew out were cited by admissions officers and also generally re-emerged in ASR participant accounts. The factor emphasised most commonly and extensively by my ASR participants as affecting their process of accessing HE is the German language requirement. Respondents frame this as a need, describing that they “must”, “need to” or “have to” achieve a certain level of competence in German, but they also emphasise that they personally desired to acquire enhanced language competence by stating that they “wish to”, “want to” and “would like to be able to” attend language courses and learn German. Participant responses generally indicate that they are in normative agreement with the language admissions requirement. One participant states: “I believe it is important that you know the language of the country you live in” (Andan), another participant responded: “I would love to study in German and in English. Only studying in English is not possible if you want to live here in Germany. You should study in German. In the country’s language” (Hader). Another participant was ready to affirm: “Of course I’m learning German. I live here. Now, Germany is my home, too” (Heba). In public discourses on migration, conservative opinions often frame language acquisition as the migrant’s duty to their “host” country and culture. The fact that Hader’s response literally replicated a corresponding line of argumentation may be read as an implicit acknowledgement of this discourse and as a subdued concession to the forms of othering inherent in a supposed “duty to integrate” (McPherson, 2010: 543). Heba’s remark that Germany was her home, too, seems to also indicate an awareness of a voice that denies or contests her home status. However, her readiness to state her position clearly and to claim her home may be read to reveal Heba’s willingness to challenge the forms of exclusion she encounters.

From the perspective of my study’s participants, language demands of HEI’s are visibly laden with normativity, so criticisms were articulated tacitly and apologetically. For example, one participant asks: “I don’t understand why they require C1 German for courses in English. And universities don’t offer many courses in English. This is problematic, no? Not just for us, but other international students?” (Ali). The fact that Ali’s assessment of “problematic” is framed as a question, as well as his invocation of “other international students” as a group whose demands he thought were considered more valid, reveals his understanding that his assigned identity as a refugee limits the legitimacy of his complaint about the nature of a barrier to HE access. This position is even articulated more clearly by Dana, who introduces her remark that university typically only offered free language courses up to B2 level but required C1 level for admissions by stating “I don’t want to be seen as someone who complains, but it is a problem that […]”. Re-occurring statements like “I don’t want to be a burden to the German state” (Alex), “I am very grateful to be in Germany” (Amira) and “I want to educate myself so I can give back to the German state” (Karim) allow insight into my participants’ awareness of the xenophobic accusations commonly levelled against refugees, and how carefully they navigate hostile perceptions in the attempt of making use of the educational opportunities supposedly available to them.

Lack of recognition of abilities and qualifications

A central finding that emerged from participants’ accounts was the lack of recognition they receive both for their previous achievements and current condition. For example, it emerged as a trope that it is both “difficult” and “expensive” to produce the type of formally certified and translated documents that would satisfy German university admissions offices. Even if one manages to tackle that bureaucratic hurdle, my participants find that their previous qualifications do not count towards or are considered inadequate for the level of studies they wished to pursue. Alex recounts his experience of rejection:

TU Berlin rejected me because of my insufficient German level. The Karlsruhe Institute of technology rejected me, with the reason that they did not have enough space for new students. In August, I applied to RWTH Aachen, which is my dream university because it is top for mechanical and automotive engineering…After 8 months of waiting, I got the notification that I was rejected because of seven missing credit points. The worst thing is, that these credit points are missing from the two courses in mechanical engineering, which were the core courses of my previous education, as I am a graduate from an accredited mechanical engineering institute! (Alex)

It is visible that although Alex addresses his rejection with serenity and composure, “the worst thing” – the fact that his knowledge and qualification as a Syrian were considered insufficient – cuts deeper. In providing a similar account, Karim tells me:

And when I came from Syria, I was very proud of my qualification, my knowledge. But I can’t lie to you, and I can’t lie to myself, it’s a very big problem: the quality in Syria and the quality in Germany… there is no way of comparison. It’s between zero and hundred. (Karim)

Karim’s statement reveals that he has subscribed to a spectrum of academic recognition set out by German HEIs on which German qualifications “score 100” and Syrian education “scores 1”. It furthermore indicates that for him, adopting this judgement was a process of deconstruction; one where he “can’t lie to himself” and is required to forego his previously held pride and academic confidence. While neither Alex nor Karim openly disagree with the new system of educational value they are confronted with – a sign that they have perhaps conceded to a globalised, neo-liberal discourse on professionalism and qualifications where Western institutions inevitably score higher (Burke, 2012: 111) – it is clear that it has forcibly changed their self-perception as being skilled and knowledgeable.

Furthermore, Alex’s indication that different institutions cited different reasons for his rejection points to a perceived lack of a comprehensive rationale for university admissions – or to his inability to see it. The fact that access to HEIs is defined by Kafkaesque obscurity is lamented by all my participants, including university officials, who describe the admissions system as extremely complicated (HE official 1) and almost impossible to understand (HE official 2). Many of my ASR participants are resigned to locating this barrier in their own lack of knowledge, lack of linguistic competence or inability to “find” information. Others express frustration and disillusionment with the widely perpetuated narrative that Germany was a place where refugees were “welcome”. For example, Alex states: “I thought Germany was a land of opportunities. But I realised, for us, going to university here is even harder than in Syria”, while Abdul explains: “I would like to start again with a masters but … I mean, I don’t have enough information about universities in Germany. I tried but I think nobody really knows. Universities don’t know themselves” and Hader states: “Universities…. they don’t accept all. They don’t accept many people. Yes, there are smart Syrians here. But there is no chance…”. Undertones of resignation and scepticism framed how my participants described the supposed wealth of opportunities and initiatives offered to them.

It is evident that my participants perceive the schism between the officially declared commitment of the German government and HEIs to widening access to ASRs on the one hand and the layers of bureaucracy on the other as a normative incongruence. Unsurprisingly, my participants clearly observe the discrepancy between historically exclusionary institutions such as universities, and their self-declared humanitarian aspirations in light of the “refugee crisis”. However, without exception, my participants are careful not to explicitly call out such double standards and not to claim that German HEIs have a legal or moral obligation to enable access. Rather, as in the case of Dana, they resort to supposedly neutral, neo-liberal justificatory narratives that explain why refugees should be enabled to access German universities:

But also Germany will benefit from well educated employees. Many of the refugees that come to Germany have already studied in their home countries, as well as I have done, and they want to continue their studies here. But because of the application procedures at German universities, these targets are unachievable for most of us. (Dana)

Throughout my research, it has clearly emerged that my participants’ sense that as ASRs, they are not allowed to state demands or articulate entitlements and that they feel obliged to express gratitude and compliance. At the same time, my participants note that the extent of institutional support and compassion in Germany does not suffice to truly address their condition. In this sense, the social significance of the ASR status and identity manifests itself as a double-edged sword: on the one hand, their qualifications, abilities and agency are misrecognised, but on the other hand, the more insidious social and economic challenges they face as a consequence of their experiences of forced migration remain unaddressed by admissions policies.

Lack of recognition of the continuing challenges of experiences of forced migration

In explaining the difficulties of accessing university, my participants point to how university entry requirements intersect with the broader socio-economic conditions associated with their refugee status. A word commonly used to describe what their living circumstances are lacking is that of “stable”. For example, Mahmoud, who recently arrived in Germany, describes his situation: “I came with my wife and my child and right now, we don’t have a stable life. I would love to study but right now I cannot prioritise that”.

Similarly, Abdul, who has lived in Germany for 17 months, describes the continuing challenges he faces:

The biggest problem… there are many problems… Maybe this is not important, but there is no furniture in my home. And it’s difficult to study without furniture…no TV… These are not important things but….it means we are not stable. Not comfortable. And we have to do everything by our own. And you can say that I am in the best situation, I think about going to university. But the others are lost. They are completely lost. And you can see many refugees sleeping in the streets. That has happened to me before. And you can’t study if you sleep on the streets and if you don’t have a home. (Abdul)

In using the spatially charged concept of “stable” or its German equivalent “stabil”, Abdul and Mahmoud reveal insight into the precariousness of their position and how it affects their ability to navigate the challenges they encounter (Gateley, 2014: 8; Hek. 2005: 5; Kanu, 2008: 924. Furthermore, the apologetic and hesitant nature of Abdul’s account demonstrates that he feels uneasy about articulating complaints or encouraging pity. We may also interpret his enhanced awareness of his own privilege in relation to other refugees as the gentle attempt to encourage the researcher to see the relative disadvantage of refugees in relation to other groups.

In providing a more explicit explanation of how socio-economic factors limited his ability to fulfil university requirements, Andan states:

As a refugee, you get 400 euros a month. I cannot afford paying a Deutschkurs. You must pay electricity and other things and the [public transport] ticket … I cannot drive with the normal ticket of the jobcentre to my language course, so I have to pay more for other tickets and this Thursday, I just got 290 euros – which is just enough to buy food. I cannot pay for the language course. I asked some other students in the course, like an Italian guy, and he said he paid 200 euros a month and that I cannot pay. (Andan)

Correspondingly, in her responses, Dana refers to factors such as travel costs as “Echte Hürden” (real barriers):

Q: You talked about the language requirement. What about it do you find so “problematic”?

A: So, the language tests don’t discriminate against anyone. But the problem is that you have to take the test at the university, and depending on where you live, travelling and staying there costs quite a bit of money. And even more so if you have to re-take the test. These are not really barriers for people who really came here to study – not as refugees. But for us refugees, they are real barriers. (Dana)

Dana’s and Andan’s statements enable an understanding of how, once coupled with the broader difficulties and limitations associated with their position as ASRs, common formal admissions requirements morph into practically insurmountable barriers. The fact that Dana begins her explanation with the declaration that “language tests don’t discriminate against anyone” refers to the more subtle mechanism of setting equal requirements for unequal social conditions at which most barriers to educational access often operate. She thus implicitly challenges the conception of justice as equality that overlooks the social reality of exclusionary constraints in admissions processes. Similarly, Andan’s insistence that he simply “cannot pay” illustrates his wish to make his situation – one that remains ignored and unaddressed by the policies for HE – visible to the researcher.

Problematic presumptions of equality: refugees and international students

Dana’s comparison of his situation of “people who really came here to study” with that of “us refugees” must be read as indicative of her impression that admissions policies – and by extension, HE in Germany – is targeted at ASRs only insofar as they fit the profile of international students. This, of course, resonates with the fact that in their admissions policies, German HEIs are intentionally blind towards the ASR condition and subsume Syrian ASRs under the more general admissions classification of “international students” (Strate, 2016). This is explicitly iterated by admission officials, who emphasise that they do not “care about” (HE Official 3) or do not consider or know about (HE Official 1) whether applicants are refugees, asylum seekers, or simply non-EU nationals: in conformity with a conception of justice as equality, this was normatively judged as “Gleichbehandlung” (equal treatment) (HE Officials 2 and 3).

For ASR participants, it is the category of “other migrant students” that they feel directly positioned against, and this study’s findings reveal some of the struggles and contradictions this creates for my participants. A particular instance where this assumption of equality between different groups of applicants was perceived as particularly stifling was the “Ausländerquote” (foreigner quota): various participants are aware that competitive courses in Germany typically have maximum quotas for applicants from outside the EU of between 5% and 7% (Borgwardt et al., 2015; Deutscher Bundestag, 2016. With more than 300,000 international students in 2015 (BMBF, 2015), Germany is amongst the most popular destinations for international student migration (Bessey, 2012) and as Syrian nationals, my participants felt that the odds of succeeding in gaining admission in a pool with other international students were against them. Amira, Hader and Dana express the following concerns:

I think it could be difficult to actually study because as I understand this, not everybody can study everything in Germany – that’s just like it is in Syria. But they only accept a small number of foreign students and if I apply, other foreigners, so for instance people not from Syria but from countries that are very similar to Germany, will have better applications. (Amira)

They compare us to people from places like Canada who come to Germany just to study, and who had time to finish their degrees and get all their diplomas before. You know, not refugees. (Hader).

I am not saying the quota is discrimination. But it is just not possible for us. (Dana)

Notably, in emphasising the misrecognition of relative inequality between refugees and other groups of HE applicants, my participants use descriptive language and veer clear of direct assessments of fairness or justice. Their normative judgements are implicit in how they characterise the differences between themselves and other groups of students and applicants. While Amira does not go so far to challenge the nationalist privilege of German nationals in admissions processes, she expresses concern over the fact that the demands she faces are equal to those for geographically and socio-economically privileged international students; people “from countries that are very similar to Germany”. This finding resonates with Appadurai’s approach to inequality in HE access processes as manifest in limited navigational capacity (Appadurai, 2004): my ASR participants describe access to HE as a social process that operates on different planes, depending on which social group one belongs to: access appears to be defined by a clear path and manageable hurdles for those who are “not refugees”, while the ASRs face a landscape striated by obstacles and the lack of possibilities to navigate them.

Findings regarding my participants’ perspective on the factors that affect their access to HEIs in Germany demonstrate that my participants struggle with the factors mentioned in the literature review. Participant accounts particularly emphasise how the different factors intersect and converge to restrain their participation in HE. An exploration of their perspective revealed that my participants feel that their previous achievements and knowledge do not receive institutional recognition, while at the same time, the struggles they continued to face as a consequence of forced migration also remain unrecognised by university admissions officials. As a consequence of this bifold lack of recognition, my participants have become disillusioned with the inclusive “refugees welcome” discourse practised by university officials and policy-makers.

At the same time, this study also reveals that young adult Syrian refugees are hesitant to normatively condemn the obstacles they encounter as unjustified discrimination. This suggests that many of them have adopted a neo-liberal perspective on HE access and attribute the difficulties they experience to their own lack of knowledge and ability. Various participants indicate that from their perspective, they are not entitled to demand help or support from German institutions or policy-makers in this process. However, their detailed descriptions of how continuing difficulties stemming from experiences of forced migration limit them in relation to other groups of applicants clearly reveal that they feel affected by a more subtle form of discrimination where ignorant presumptions of equality further enhance relative disadvantage. Interestingly, my participants are careful not to challenge the privileged position of German nationals in the application processes. Instead, the main ASRs appear to link their concerns to the relative position of other internationals whose privilege they lament as unacknowledged.

International student status and migration aspirations

As delineated in the previous section, qualitative explorations into the views and understandings that affect my participants’ interest in accessing HE have revealed that beyond instrumental uses, being a student is considered intrinsically valuable and relevant for identity formation. As exposed by a combination of coding strategies, data establishes that my participants’ responses display a conceptual binary between the identity-relevant categories of “student” and “refugee”. This section is focussed on drawing out the relations my participants posit between these two concepts.

In narrating to me his motivation behind accessing university, Ali and Adnan explain:

I want to be part of something that is not just for Flüchtlinge (refugees). Everything else is because I am a refugee. The place where I live is a place where Flüchtlinge live. Going to Uni would make me a student again. Not only a Flüchtling. (Ali)

I am not enrolled yet. Still, I say that I am a student, especially when I meet people- because that makes a difference. [Q: What is the difference?] The difference is everything. I had to become a Flüchtling, but I want to study, then work, just live, like other people. (Andan)

Both Andan and Ali directly contrast the conceptual category of refugee with that of student. For Andan, the parameters of a student identity explicitly allow him to escape the constrained existence as a “mere” refugee. Both Andan’s and Ali’s accounts suggest that the identifier “refugee” was assigned to them involuntarily, whereas being a student is an identity in whose formation they conceive of themselves as exerting agency. The common usage of the German term “Flüchtling” by numerous participants in otherwise mostly English sentences betrays that their understanding of the concept refugee is shaped by the constructions they encountered in their host country. In this sense, we must assume that for my participants, the category of “Flüchtling” is an amalgam of their own lived experience of forced migration, as well as German discourses that are prominently defined by xenophobia and assumptions of vulnerability (Lehr, 2015). It thus comes as no surprise that the foreign language concept of “Flüchtling” is used by participants to express a misrecognition of their identity. For my participants, the goal of assuming a student identity visibly constitutes a means of overcoming the limitations associated with their refugee condition.

Furthermore, as revealed earlier, a category that features prominently as a comparison group in my participants’ accounts is that of international students. Foreigners who entered Germany with the explicit purpose of studying were not only considered as a rival group of applicants; my respondents articulated their view that people whose educational aspirations were endemic to their migration status had easier access to Europe and received more recognition than refugees. This is particularly evident in Hader’s account:

Coming to Germany was expensive and very hard. The worst thing about it was that I did not do anything wrong, in my view. Everyday thousands of people go to different countries, for travel, for work and for studying, also! It is one of the most normal things in life. But I had to cross seven borders to come here, and I felt like a criminal. (Hader)

From Hader’s perspective, it is visibly absurd that student visas create a pathway through the borders that rendered him – though he equally aspires to study – excluded and deviant. Qualitative interviews revealed that my participants were acutely aware of the paradox that in the normative discourses surrounding migration, crossing a border for the purpose of studying is often considered more valid and legitimate than crossing borders to escape threats to one’s life and wellbeing (Kirkegaard and Nat-George, 2016: 398). Of course, student visas require the fulfilment of various financial and bureaucratic conditions – they are by no means available to everyone and educational aspirations certainly do not suffice. This was also confirmed by two participants of my study who had explored this possibility and found that for them, obtaining student visas was simply unfeasible. As we can be deduced from Hader’s account, crossing borders on a student visa is considered a more privileged migration context than seeking asylum:

It was my dream to do my masters, and I always wanted to do it at a good university in Europe or the US. Of course I did not want to come here as a refugee. I would have liked to come on a student visa. (Hader)

The finding encourages the interpretation that, from the perspective of young adult ASRs, the desire to access HE is wound up not just with a desire for social and economic mobility, but also with what we might describe as “migration aspirations” – the desire to acquire a more privileged migration status. As argued by Raghuram (2013), international students enjoy a separate and somewhat elevated social status amongst the different groups within countries’ migrant populations. For decades, the internationalisation of HE has encouraged student migration and has created privileged routes and pathways through the bordered landscape of nation states (Collins, 2008). As indicated by Kirkegaard and Nat-George (2016), the effect of this layer of migration opportunities on existing social contexts of migration has not been sufficiently explored. Especially, the extent to which student migration creates opportunities for and is utilised by young adults from poverty and conflict affected areas is not well documented. The findings of this study enable an insight into the symbolic significance that student migration has for other groups of migrants, such as ASRs. This allows the tentative proposal that the unequal system of migration contexts that developed as a result of the internationalisation of HE has imbued the student status with migration aspirations.

Conclusion

This presentation and interpretation of some of this research project’s findings regarding the views and understandings that frame participants’ interest in accessing HE has revealed that participants consider the assigned category of refugee or “Flüchtling” as a stifling misrecognition of their full identity. In this context, it emerged that for them, assuming the status and identity of a student carried with it a symbolic significance and value beyond its instrumental uses on the labour market. Based on this insight, this study proposes that it may be an effect of the internationalisation of HE that the student status has come to constitute an object of migration aspirations. For the participants of this study, accessing HE is an aspiration that is layered with meaning and significance. It constitutes an important locus of identity formation processes and renders visible certain ways in which individuals with experiences of forced migration negotiate their place in this world.

A further significant discovery is that in describing their views on access and educational aspirations, ASR participants extensively referred to “other migrant/international students”. These are conceived as a comparatively privileged group against which participants had to unduly compete for university access as part of international student quotas. At the same time, a more nuanced inquiry into the meaning participants attributed to accessing university also indicated that other migrant/international students held a status young adult ASRs hesitantly desired. In particular, they observed that (international) students had privileged social positions and were perceived more favourably than other groups of migrants. Correspondingly, the binary distinctions participants draw between the identity-relevant categories of “Flüchtling” and “student” indicate that for ASRs, being a student is filled with the symbolic significance of transcending the stifling parameters of their refugee existence. This research project has termed this particular type of desire “migration aspirations”. As a concept that makes sense of values and meanings within which HE is conceptualised by ASRs, “migration aspirations” adds to the currently sparse body of literature on the role and significance of education in post-forced-migration contexts. It furthermore encourages reflections on how the internationalisation of HE and extension of student visa programmes relates to the global migration possibilities available to those affected by conflict (Kirkegaard and Nat-George, 2016).

Limitations of the study

Due to the qualitative and interpretative research design, my findings do not claim to be generalisable beyond the participants of this project. This study recognises – and is explicitly based on the assumption – that human experiences and understandings are subjective and of a fragile particularity. The topic of my research and the fact that I mainly relied on German and English to establish contact with my research participants meant that they were likely to have comparatively higher levels of education and foreign language competence than the “average” Syrian ASR young person in Germany. However, this research project did not claim to generate findings that are generalisable to the population of Syrian ASRs at large; rather, it focused on the perspective of those individuals who are the central target of current “Hochschulflüchtlingspolitik” (HE policies for refugees) in Germany. In their diversity and commonalities, this study’s participants display a range of attributes that are likely characteristic of Syrian ASRs with an interest in accessing HE. Thus, despite the inevitably idiosyncratic nature of qualitative accounts, this study’s findings may function as a source of insight for HE professionals and policy-makers and especially speak to some of the more experimental pilot policies and initiatives targeting ASRs that are currently emerging (see, for example, Borgwardt, 2016; Deutscher Bundestag, 2016; Schammann and Younso, 2016).

Furthermore, there may be certain variances with respect to the HE policies and practices of the different Länder, especially regarding the recognition of previous qualifications (Borgwardt et al., 2015). This research was conducted with participants resident in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. While residents of a particular German state can apply to HEIs across Germany, ASRs may be inclined to attempt to access local HEIs. This implies that this study’s findings do not address some of the particularities of HE access processes in other states.

This research project was conducted as part of a one-year MSc programme and is accordingly limited in its focus and research design: time constraints meant that I was only able to conduct a limited number of interviews. However, sample sizes in qualitative research are typically small (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003) and the total of 15 refugee and four professional interviews enabled me to yield rich and detailed data on my research interests.

Implications for further research

It is with reference to the intersection of the fields of education and forced migration studies that this research project locates a need for further research. In particular, the recent surge in numbers of ASRs has created a pressing urgency for further research regarding educational access and participation of ASRs in their host countries’ educational systems. Predictably, this project’s findings have not been able to address a range of questions raised in the literature review. The present research project is exploratory and takes place at a time before the dust of the “global refugee crisis” has settled. We may thus expect that the following years will see increasing numbers of ASRs accessing HE, and research must invariably address their experiences of access to and participating in HE. In light of rapid changes of policies and practices pertaining to ASRs across Europe, a timely and empirically informed understanding of the lived realities and perspectives of ASRs is paramount.