黑料不打烊

I am a refugee early career academic and researcher from Afghanistan, and I came to the UK through the (ARAP) resettlement scheme in 2021. Since arriving, and again since rejoining academia, I have often been asked if I feel more belonging now. The question can sound kind, but it can also shift responsibility onto the person answering. It frames belonging as a feeling to report, not as the conditions education systems are responsible for building. In this blog post I reflect on the mismatch between belonging and measurement, and I argue that belonging is made possible or made costly through institutional conditions of recognition, safety and power.

I hear the same logic aired in public discussions and workplace talk. In one event where the audience saw itself as supportive, a participant said refugees do ‘the shitty jobs’ in this country. People nodded. Another time, after I had contributed as a colleague, someone asked, ‘So, are you settled now?’ These remarks may sound ordinary, yet they narrow a person to usefulness or perpetual newcomer status. That pattern shapes what education does. Refugee learners get framed through deficit () and utility. Education turns into fixing, absorbing or showcasing them as evidence of inclusion. Belonging becomes a moral language that can make this feel humane while leaving inequalities untouched.

‘Refugee learners get framed through deficit and utility. Education turns into fixing, absorbing or showcasing them as evidence of inclusion.’

This is why I worry about measuring belonging. What is really being measured when belonging is measured? Who benefits from measuring belonging, and whose belonging counts? Often these measures capture how well learners can cope with an environment that was not built for them. They capture whether learners can perform with ease, confidence and gratitude. They rarely capture what it costs learners to do that or what the institution refuses to change.

Research points to a different way of thinking. A systematic review of refugee education in Europe shows that safety, belonging and success move together and are undermined by bullying and discrimination (). In practice, safety is not a feeling to self-report but the product of how institutions respond to racism, bullying, reporting and protection in everyday routines. argues that refugee education sits between universal rights, national ideas of belonging, and what institutions do in daily practice. When institutions do not change, belonging talk can become a cover for exclusion.

Measures can flag harm, but they can also become performance. They produce simple numbers that look good in reports. They can help organisations show progress without changing the routines that produced the answers. Muller (2018) warns that metric fixation reshapes practice once measures become targets. Belonging data can also work as a trap. When learners report low belonging, the response is often framed as an individual need for support. It rarely looks like the institution needs to change.

Whose belonging counts tends to be decided by dominant norms. It is easier to recognise learners who look settled, sound fluent and do not disrupt. It is harder to recognise disrupted study, missing paperwork, trauma or mistrust of systems as predictable outcomes of displacement. It is harder to recognise multilingual knowledge as academic strength. If belonging counts mainly when it is quiet and convenient, it becomes another way to sort people into those who fit and those who must adapt.

‘If belonging counts mainly when it is quiet and convenient, it becomes another way to sort people into those who fit and those who must adapt.’

If belonging is taken seriously, recognition and power must be taken seriously. show that newcomer students are recognised differently across policy contexts, and that educators can reproduce or unsettle those framings in practice. argues for trauma-informed and culturally responsive approaches that validate identities, build meaningful connections, and support agency. The implications go beyond universities. They apply in schools, colleges, adult ESOL, vocational routes and professional training.

So, I am not interested in whether I belong more now. I am interested in whether institutions will change what they control. That means fair recognition of prior learning, strong language support, and consistent action on racism and bullying. It means reducing routine suspicion and making participation possible without constant proof. Belonging is not a number to collect. It is a relationship that systems either make possible or make costly.

Reference

Muller, J. Z. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press.