Experiences of Epistemic Injustice among Minority Language Students Aged 6–16 in the Nordics: A Literature Review

Abstract

Background: Scandinavian education systems are recognized as being particularly inclusive. Nevertheless, an inclusive approach to education risks adopting a patronizing attitude that silences the voices of the very people who should be included. To discuss the role of epistemic justice in inclusion, we investigated current knowledge about the epistemic injustice experienced by students from immigrant backgrounds in Scandinavia; teacher perceptions of those students; and whether such perceptions influence student–teacher interactions. Do these perceptions lead to disparities? Method: A literature review was conducted focused on studies about the Nordic countries; teacher perceptions of students from immigrant backgrounds aged 6–16; and student–teacher interaction. The corpus included papers in English and the Nordic languages. Eight papers were included and rated by two independent authors. Results: The findings show that teacher perceptions of students from immigrant backgrounds influence student–teacher interaction in both verbal and non-verbal ways. The negative perceptions that teachers held of students from immigrant backgrounds led to experiences of epistemic injustice and epistemic exclusion. The literature provided no information on disparities in special needs education or assessment. Conclusions: Due to the limited literature on this topic, further research needs to be undertaken in order to fully understand experiences of epistemic injustice in schools. Further research into why students from immigrant backgrounds feel excluded and why they are lagging behind is also required.

1. Introduction

Scandinavian educational systems are recognized as being particularly inclusive. In particular, Norway is constantly improving its inclusion policies. Nevertheless, an inclusive approach to education always risks adopting a patronizing attitude that silences the voices of the very people who should be included. In order to raise awareness of the importance of applying epistemic justice to inclusive attitudes, this paper focuses on the classroom experiences of epistemic injustice among students from immigrant backgrounds. Highlighting the importance of epistemic injustice in schools, it looks at the repercussions epistemic injustice can have on learning and on the formation of the students’ identity. With increased ease of transportation, moving to another country may be simply a plane ride away. This, together with unrest in certain countries, means that more people are on the move for better opportunities, a different landscape or to escape. This relocation involves bringing their children with them or forming families in the place they now call home. It also involves learning the language of their destination country and getting used to a different way of life. Children start attending schools that have practices unlike those they are used to and have to learn how things work in their destination country. The Nordic countries hold similar educational values, focused on democracy, equality and inclusion [1,2]. Therefore, the inclusion of students from immigrant backgrounds should not pose a problem. However, immigrants in the Nordics have lower status, are seen as threatening, and are the subject of negative stereotypes [3,4,5]. There is legislation in place in the Nordics to ensure the inclusion of students from immigrant backgrounds. Students whose mother tongue is not the language of their destination country are entitled to language instruction to enable them to follow teaching within regular classes [6,7,8,9,10]. More than 60,000 students start first grade in Norway each autumn, and over six percent of these students require Norwegian language instruction [11]. Even with legislation in place, there are many other factors that play a role in the inclusion of students, including the school context, the environment and teachers. Since teachers are in constant interaction with students every day, they play an important role in their students’ sense of belonging, motivation and engagement [12,13]. The extent to which a student feels included, motivated and engaged, depends on how teachers respond to their own impressions. Negative teacher perceptions of students can negatively affect a student’s motivation and engagement, through discouraging feedback, showing impatience [14] or providing unchallenging tasks [15].

Epistemic injustice is psychological harm done to an individual based on their capacity as a knower, as a result of prejudice [16]. This harm is related to the hearer’s perception of the speaker. Since knowledge is the epitome of education, it is important to find out whether, alongside immigrants’ low status, teacher perceptions of students from immigrant backgrounds contribute to experiences of epistemic injustice.

As we find ways to improve inclusion in schools, it is also important to find out whether teacher perceptions influence the type of student–teacher interactions that may affect the student’s sense of belonging. Moreover, the topic of epistemic injustice in Nordic schools is still considered unchartered waters. Thus, the aim of this article is to find out what the current literature says about teacher perceptions of immigrant students and how these may influence the type of interactions they have. How does this perception lead to disparities in who receives special education services and does this lead to the further segregation of immigrant students?

1.1. The Nordic Context

Democracy, equality and inclusion are at the heart of education in the Nordics. The ideal of democracy implies recognition that every individual is a legitimate subject of knowledge [17]. Indeed, no real dialogue or understanding is possible if one does not recognize one’s interlocutor as a subject fully entitled to possess reliable knowledge, legitimate needs and emotions.

In the Nordics, the ideal of democracy is pursued through the provision of compulsory education for children aged from 6 to 16 in Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden [7,18,19,20], and 7 to 17 in Finland [21]. Students who have recently arrived in the country, and/or whose mother tongue is not the language of their destination country, are required to learn the host language and are thus entitled to receive specific language instruction. Following the evaluation of the student’s language ability, discussions between the school, professionals, parents and the student are carried out to determine the type and extent of instruction they will receive [6,7,8,9,10]. In Norway, additional language instruction is voluntary and is subject to both parental and student consent [9]. Depending on the resources available in the municipality in which the student resides, language instruction can be offered as special classes, also known as preparatory or introduction classes, in groups, or in the form of one-to-one support. This is intended to ensure the student can be part of and benefit from regular classes as soon as possible [6,8,9,10]. Students in Denmark who are assessed as able to participate in regular classes are allowed to study Danish as a second language, which is integrated into regular classes [6]. The duration of language instruction differs between countries, with up to one year in Finland [8] and a maximum of two years in Norway and Sweden [9,10].

1.1.1. Inclusion

The notion of inclusion in the Nordics converts the school into an equal and neutral place [22], one that is color-blind and thus does not take account of the students’ cultural backgrounds [23]. Despite this, the idea of what it means to be a normal student is still predominantly white-normative [22]. This involves the Nordic values of independent learning, that is the ability to take control of one’s own learning and contribute to classroom discussions, as opposed to what students from immigrant background are supposed to be used to. This includes rote learning and the hands-on approach used by teachers, which are not the norm in the Nordics [22,24,25]. This notion trivializes previous and current experiences by failing to recognize the complexities and difficulties students from immigrant backgrounds face when relocating to a new country.

The idea of inclusion and the degree to which a student is included depends on the school context and the teacher. The teacher’s concept of inclusion, experience of teaching diverse students, openness and exposure to other cultures can result in diverging practices for student inclusion. This determines whether or not they choose to consider and incorporate the students’ cultural backgrounds into their teaching and learning, and how they see their students [22,24,25,26].

Preservice teachers, who are still in training, describe a lack of training or experience of other cultures, which seems to affect the strategies and resources they use in class [27,28]. Moreover, since some information about the student may be confidential, teachers lack information about their students’ backgrounds and previous experiences and think it is inappropriate to ask [29]. In the context of equality and neutrality, teachers are reluctant to discuss racism, instances of racism, politics, or the roles of teachers themselves [22,26,30]. The teachers in Eriksen and Stein’s 2021 [31] study listed multiple reasons for this reluctance. They question their ability to remain neutral in such discussions and are afraid of creating a problematic form of normativity. Some teachers cite a caring attitude as one of their reasons—they do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings [31]—while others are not sure what should be said, for fear of saying the wrong thing. This leads us to wonder about the consequences of choosing to avoid these topics and whether this does actually promote equality.

1.1.2. Immigrant Status in the Nordics

The concept of sameness, the idea of Finnishness, Swedishness, and what it is to be a Dane or a Norwegian, is prominent in Nordic schools, since it relates to the co-development of the public education system and the definition of ethnic and national identities before the 19th Century [3,22,32,33]. The image of a good student is one who can blend in with others and not stand out. If language support is provided separately from regular classes, and this occurs alongside the stereotypes about the low status of immigrants, how does this contribute to segregation? Linked to negative behaviors, such as laziness, the use of expletives, or behaviors that do not comply with social or school norms, labels such as utlending (foreigner), araber (Arab), or perker are given to students from immigrant backgrounds [4,32]. These students are considered rowdier and the language they use, which is characterized by combining words from other languages with the majority language, is given names by non-ethnolectal users. Names such as perker language, jallaspråk (jalla language) [4], and kebab-norsk (kebab language), are considered demeaning and condescending by their users [34]. These discriminating labels, together with segregated language support classrooms, seem to amplify the already low status of immigrants and create an ‘us and them’ situation rather than an inclusive setting.

1.2. The Role of the Teacher

Teachers play an important role in the lives of their students. They pay attention to the emotional, academic and physical needs of their students and try to incorporate their needs into lessons, while also making sure they stay within the curriculum framework. The amount of time teachers spend with their students allows them to foster relationships that play a substantial role in their students’ motivation [13]. Through interactions with them, teachers also affect their students’ goal orientation, values and efficacy [35]. All these, however, are influenced by the beliefs and perceptions teachers have of their students.

Beliefs and Perception

Beliefs, expectations, and perceptions play a role in students’ development and their experiences of epistemic injustice. Generally speaking, the beliefs and perceptions we hold are context-dependent and may be stable or change over time and with experience. Since our beliefs are formed through our interactions with the environment, they may also include prejudices and practices that have been carried down over generations [36]. This affects our expectations of others and their practices. For instance, people in developed countries who have higher expectations of efficiency and hygiene may frown upon delays and avoid street food when visiting developing ones. Though our beliefs may change over time and not accord with our current ones, they continue to reside in us subconsciously [16]. Implicit beliefs and values, alongside experiences in our professional and daily lives, may carry stereotypes, prejudices and expectations within them. In regard to educational contexts, teachers hold positions of power and their beliefs and expectations may be projected onto their students, potentially turning into positive or stigmatizing self-fulfilling prophecies, also known as the Pygmalion effect [37]. Known to be a factor in a teacher’s prediction of a student’s performance, teacher beliefs have been found to affect the accuracy of their judgement and to be more inaccurate when judging their low-performing, rather than their high-performing students [38]. Similarly, teachers have been found to be more inaccurate in judging the language proficiency of ethnic minority students than majority students performing at the same level [39,40,41]. Accuracy in assessing students is essential for providing the right learning support, assignments and responses, such as feedback and dialogue. Teachers who have lower expectations of their students gave discouraging feedback and demonstrated impatience when responding to them. This, in turn, lowered their students’ motivation and confidence [14].

The relationships teachers foster with their students are important for learning, engagement and promoting a sense of belonging among students. A positive student–teacher relationship increases a student’s motivation [13,42] and can function as a compensatory factor for low task accuracy [43]. The direction which student–teacher relationships take is dependent on teacher beliefs and expectations, as well as on a student’s characteristics. Positive student–teacher relationships are associated with positive teacher expectations of their students [13]. Students who show high levels of engagement, academic performance and motivation are also reported to have higher levels of closeness with their teachers. On the other hand, students with high levels of internal or exhibited problem behavior and shyness are reported to be less close, more conflicted and dependent on their teachers [44]. Possible at-risk students, such as students who are excluded by their peers, or students of low status, tend to experience low-quality student–teacher relationships which are distant, conflicting, and non-supportive. These negative and low quality relationships tend to increase the likelihood of bullying and bullying behaviors. This likelihood therefore exacerbates an already negative student–teacher relationship [45], thus affecting a student’s sense of belonging.

The teacher’s culture and experiences may also influence classroom management in terms of what the teacher believes is deviant behavior. In a culturally ethnocentric environment, or in schools that promote a monoculture in which only the practices of the majority population are accepted, where the teachers may also have little experience of other cultures, the behaviors exhibited by students from immigrant backgrounds may be interpreted as deviant, since they do not conform to that particular social context [46]. Teachers who strongly believe in assimilation or integration may be quicker to mete out punishments for what they consider deviant behavior [47]. While some choose to punish, other teachers choose to ignore what they perceive as deviant behavior and the incidences of bullying that can follow, resulting in student exclusion, continued bullying and invisibility [48].

1.3. Epistemic Injustice

Epistemic injustice, a term coined by Miranda Fricker [16], constitutes psychological harm done to an individual based on prejudice about their capacity as a knower. The term epistemic injustice is further divided into hermeneutical and testimonial injustice. Hermeneutical injustice occurs as a result of structural prejudice. This takes place at an initial stage, where it is impossible to make sense of a social experience because of a gap in collective interpretive resources, placing the individual at a disadvantage. Testimonial injustice, which is the focus of this review, is defined as prejudice that causes the hearer to ascribe a deflated level of credibility to the speaker. An act of epistemic injustice is committed when an individual is denied the credibility they deserve. For instance, when a student provides an answer, but is met with doubt because of their identity as an immigrant who is assumed to have little to no education. Epistemic exclusion is committed when one denies an individual the right to contribute as an epistemic agent [49], such as when a teacher always chooses certain students to answer questions and consistently ignores the attempts of a certain individual or group.

The act of epistemic injustice is related to social power. Social power affects our thoughts by eliminating or distracting us from reasoning and functioning as rational human beings. Identity power, a form of social power that is held by an individual, is based on a shared social concept and tied to social identities [16]. This is culturally formed and differs from culture to culture. For instance, some cultures regard the teacher as a fellow parent, allowing them to act as co-parents, while others regard teachers as nannies who watch over their children and blame teachers for minor issues, such as paint on their child’s clothes.

The hearer is given the instant task of determining the speaker’s credibility and has to estimate the likelihood that the speaker is speaking the truth. The prejudice that the hearer holds towards the speaker can cloud their judgement when they determine the credibility of the speaker’s words. The social identity that the speaker holds contributes to the prejudice held by the hearer, if the hearer decides to base the speaker’s credibility solely on their identity. This subjects the speaker to prejudicial credibility deficit [16]. Prejudice can come in many forms, one of which is identity prejudice, related to a person’s social identity. Identity-prejudicial credibility deficit occurs if the speaker receives a credibility deficit due solely to identity prejudice, which results in testimonial injustice [16]. This is commonly the case for children in relation to their abilities at different developmental ages. The words of children are often taken less seriously, for instance in court or at the doctor’s. The child identity is seen as less knowledgeable, with fewer reasoning skills and limited language [50]. For these reasons, children are more susceptible to testimonial injustice [49,51]. Students from immigrant backgrounds not only have the child identity, but also have limited language skills in the language of their destination country. Furthermore, in addition to their child identity, students from immigrant backgrounds may suffer testimonial injustice due to negative stereotypes and the low status of immigrants in the Nordics. Testimonial injustice can be intended or unintended—intended due to prejudice, or unintended due to prejudicial residue on the part of the hearer.

1.3.1. Culture and Epistemic Injustice

As we have seen in the previous section, epistemic injustice is socially situated. The formation of social identity and identity power is based on a shared social context. In this section, we discuss the formation of stereotypes and the role of culture within it. Stereotypes are introduced by Fricker [16] as “widely held associations between a given social group and one or more attributes”. Similar to our brains, which form cognitive schemas in order to reduce cognitive load and effectively process information [52], stereotypes help us simplify the information we have about others. It is simply too difficult to pay attention to the available information, recall it and perceive that it is being communicated [53]. The cultural-historical perspective theorizes that development happens through interactions between ourselves and the environment. The environment that we are born into shapes us, forming habits, beliefs and attitudes that we come to learn through joint activities, which are rich in beliefs and experiences we carry over time [36,54].

Our frequent discussions of the actions and attributes of others, along with the frequent sharing of social information, result in the spontaneous and unintentional formation of cultural stereotypes [53]. The formation of stereotypes happens, for instance, when we are chatting with friends, or when we read or hear things in the media, such as in news articles, social media, or website forums. It is these stereotypes that play a part in epistemic injustice. Even though we may not agree with these stereotypes or the beliefs that we come to acquire growing up, they still reside within us and, unbeknownst to us, play a role in our interactions with others, resulting in epistemic injustice. This is also known as epistemic injustice as a result of prejudicial residue.

1.3.2. Importance of Epistemic Justice in Schools

While children develop, their experiences, skills and knowledge are not yet as ingrained as adults’ and are therefore vulnerable to testimonial injustice [50]. Because of their age and their assumed abilities at that age, adults tend to take what they say less seriously [49,51]. Understanding epistemic injustice in schools is important because knowledge is the epitome of teaching and learning, and knowledge production between students and teachers is ongoing, every day. Students are evaluated daily, based on the knowledge they show in class through assignments, classroom participation and discussions, and standardized tests. School assessment can be metaphorically described as an evaluation of a student’s ability to prove they are an independent producer and carrier of the knowledge that is promoted by the school’s system of values [55]. For instance, in the case of students from immigrant backgrounds, their previous knowledge (e.g., native language, culture, customs, and history) may be undervalued by the formal education values system. This can lead to an unfair assessment of the student as a legitimate knower.

Within the dominant values framework, the negative perceptions that the teacher holds about the student can result in epistemic injustice [50]. If the teachers hold negative perceptions of their students, this affects the accuracy of the teacher’s prediction of the support the student truly needs. In order to provide the support the student needs, the teacher has to accurately identify the true zone of proximal development (ZPD). This is the distance between the true developmental level of the student at which they are able to independently solve a problem, and the level of potential development at which they are able to solve a problem with guidance from an adult or more capable peers [54]. In identifying the student’s ZPD, the teacher can then provide scaffolding, that is temporary support to assist students in understanding and acquiring new concepts and skills, and remove these when the student has acquired the necessary skills [56]. The teacher’s perceptions of the student as a knower can affect their ability to identify the student’s true ZPD and fully assess what the student needs. Chinga-Ramirez [32] presents an example of this when discussing a case in which a student was assumed to require extra help only when she started to wear a hijab.

The problem with testimonial injustice is that repeated exposure to intrinsic epistemic insults, which question the individual’s intellectual abilities, erodes their confidence such that they begin to lose confidence in their general intellectual abilities. This repeated undermining leads students to lose confidence in what they believe in, as well as in their ability to justify these beliefs, putting the student at a continuous disadvantage, making them unable to learn [16]. When they suffer epistemic injustice, this loss of confidence and of the ability to justify their beliefs may contribute to a student’s unwillingness to express themselves, since their voices are actively suppressed or, in the case of epistemic exclusion, not heard. It is at this point that the student’s ideas and creativity start to die, since they are not given the opportunity to foster them [57].

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted a literature review to investigate what the current literature has to say about epistemic injustice, teacher perceptions of students from immigrant backgrounds and the type of student–teacher interactions that result from these perceptions. We also aimed to see whether there are disparities in who receives special education services and, if there are, whether these lead to further segregation. This literature review was undertaken according to Booth et al.’s [58] methods; the search, selection and exclusion were then conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Statement 2020 [59] (Figure 1).

2.1. The Choice of Age Group

This article focuses on students aged 6 to 16, and 7 to 17, since this is when compulsory education begins in the Nordic countries [7,18,19,20,21]. In order to include as many articles as possible, articles that fell within plus or minus one year of the chosen age range were also included, since these still accounted for children from 6 to 16, while not straying too far from the target age range.

2.2. Literature Search

In order to answer our research questions, we first identified overarching categories for the topic search, these were: immigrant students, teacher perception and epistemic injustice. Initial searches on the topic of students from immigrant backgrounds in the five Nordic countries identified different terms used to describe them. Synonyms and related terms were then identified based on the topics of epistemic injustice and teacher perception (and the implications of these teacher perceptions), as shown in

Table 1. Search terms by category.

Search Terms by Category	Terms
Immigrant Students	minority language, multicultural, migrant students, immigrant students
Teacher Perception	teacher perceptions, teacher expectations, teacher judgements, teacher beliefs, teacher assessment, teacher interactions, teacher disposition, student assessment
Epistemic Injustice	epistemic injustice, epistemic justice, epistemic violence, epistemic identity, social injustice,

.

A total of nine databases, ERIC, Google Scholar, JSTOR, ProQuest, PsychInfo, PubMed, Sage Journals, Science Direct, and Scopus, were selected, based on their connections with education, and these were used to identify peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and reports. The search was conducted over a two-month period from 4 January 2022 to 24 February 2022. A combination of keywords containing the four general terms, Immigrant students, Minority Language, Multicultural and Migrant Students, was paired with terms related to Teacher Perception and Epistemic Injustice: (“immigrant students” or “minority language” or “multicultural” or “migrant students”) AND (“teacher expectation” or “teacher perceptions” or “teacher beliefs” or “epistemic injustice” or “social injustice”) were used to conduct searches in each database. Searching with the combined keywords and terms revealed repeated results in JSTOR, PsychInfo and Sage Journals; in order to primarily focus on students from immigrant backgrounds, the phrase “immigrant backgrounds” and its synonyms were used instead. Additional filters were applied to include papers published from 2007, since this was the year the term “epistemic injustice” was coined. Language filters were used to filter English, Danish, Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish, as well as the following subject areas: Education, Humanities, Language and Communication Psychology, Sociology, and Social Sciences.

Selection of Literature

Abstracts from the literature were then read to pick out articles from the Nordics: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Greenland. This phase included abstracts that mentioned primary or secondary immigrant students/minority/multilingual or migrant students and teacher perceptions. Abstracts that mentioned non-Nordic countries were not included, while those that made no mention of location, immigrants or age were included for further screening.

After removing duplicates, the introduction and methods were then screened to remove all articles that were not located in the Nordics. Articles were then excluded based on certain exclusion criteria. First exclusion: all articles not related to primary and secondary students (aged 6 to 17) and non immigrants were excluded. Second exclusion: all articles that do not describe classroom interactions/feedback or teacher perceptions, response to pupils, or teacher’s assessment of students. This section focused on whether the literature touched on the topic of teacher perceptions of immigrant/minority language students. Therefore, articles with students’ descriptions of their experiences of their teachers in the classroom/school were not excluded.

2.3. Methodological Quality

The review articles were assessed for quality using QualSyst [60], since this includes scoring systems for both qualitative and quantitative studies that are suitable to the broad nature of this review. Since none of the included articles were quantitative studies, they were therefore assessed according to the Kmet [60] Manuals for Quality Scoring of Qualitative Studies with their checklists. Each of the studies was assessed for study design and scored thus: a score >80% was considered high quality; a score between 70 and 79% was considered good quality; a score between 50 and 69% was considered fair quality and a score < 50% was considered poor quality.

Data Items and Risk of Bias

To minimize bias in the articles’ selection, each of the included items was rated by two independent authors according to Kmet’s [60] Qualsysts checklists for qualitative studies. The scores from both the raters were then compared to see whether they differed significantly. Intercoder reliability was more than 80%. No further statistical analysis was performed as the quantitative dimension of the study is secondary, and the procedure provided a reliable selection process already.

2.4. Analysing the Data

The aim of this review is to synthesize the qualitative and quantitative data in order to find out whether it includes experiences of epistemic injustice suffered by students from immigrant backgrounds in the Nordic countries. It aims to discover whether teacher perceptions lead to interactions different from those they have with the majority population, whether these lead to disparities in who receives special education and to further segregation. Five categories were used to analyze the data from key sentences retrieved from the results and discussion sections of the selected studies.

2.4.1. Epistemic Injustice

Since it is the essence of this article, are there any mentions of epistemic injustice in the articles or incidences that resemble epistemic injustice?

2.4.2. Cultural Competence

As mentioned, epistemic injustice is socially and culturally influenced; it is therefore important to examine the teacher’s own cultural competence. This article is interested in looking at this perception of cultural competence and at teacher reflections on teaching students from immigrant backgrounds. This includes factors such as the teacher’s exposure and openness to different cultures. A teacher’s cultural competence is essential for determining how s/he perceives and responds to students from other cultures, such as the extent to which s/he imposes their own ideals and dismisses what is important in that student’s culture. For example, liberal views versus more conservative religious views.

2.4.3. Teacher Perceptions of Students

Instances of epistemic injustice are caused by the hearer’s prejudice against the speaker. This domain explores the perceptions and stereotypes that teachers manifest about students from immigrant backgrounds in terms of culture, student performance and behavior. It includes stereotypes the teacher may have of students from a specific country or of immigrants in general. For instance, the perception that students from immigrant backgrounds do not have minds of their own or do not participate in class.

2.4.4. Student–Teacher Interactions

Part of this review is to find out whether teacher perceptions influence student–teacher interactions, especially among students from immigrant backgrounds. Thus, special attention was paid to finding out whether the interactions teachers had with their students from immigrant backgrounds differed from those they had with the majority population, as a result of the teacher’s perceptions. For example, whether the teacher reacts differently to two students in a somewhat similar situation.

The analysis of this category involves student–teacher verbal and non-verbal interactions. For instance, what is said to a student with an immigrant background? Is the student repeatedly questioned? Does the teacher brush off the student’s statements or impose their ideals on the student? Is there a difference in the teacher’s facial expressions and body language with different students?

2.4.5. Disparities in Special Needs Education or Assessment

The final aim of this review is to find out whether there are disparities between students from immigrant backgrounds and special needs education. That is, the extent to which this is influenced by epistemic injustice and the teacher’s perceptions. This domain aims to explore whether teacher perceptions influence their assessments of their students, which may result in the student being flagged as requiring additional support when the truth is, in fact, the opposite.

3. Results

3.1. Methodological Quality

Table 2. Methodological quality for all included articles.

	Reference	Kmet Score (%)	Kmet Methodological Quality
1.	Åberg, I.B., 2021 [61]	12/20 (60)	Fair
2.	Jaffe-Walter, R., 2013 [62]	15/20 (75)	Good
3.	Jaffe-Walter, R., 2019 [63]	15/20 (75)	Good
4.	Juva, I., and Holm, G., 2017 [22]	15/20 (75)	Good
5.	Karrebæk, M. S., 2012 [64]	15/20 (75)	Good
6.	Karrebæk, M. S., 2013 [65]	15/20 (75)	Good
7.	Karrebæk, M. S., 2014 [66]	12/20 (60)	Fair
8.	Layne et al., 2018 [67]	17/18 (94)	Strong

presents the results for the articles’ methodological quality. The majority of the articles scored 75% and are of good methodological quality. Only one article scored a strong 94%.

Inter-Rater Results

The differences between inter-rater scores ranged from 0.05 to 0.12. Both raters assigned the same score to Article 3. Five of the eight articles had a difference of less than 0.1.

3.2. The Articles

A total of eight articles were included in this review. All eight were qualitative studies that examined teacher perceptions.

Table 3. Study characteristics, domains discussed in the study.

	Study Characteristics							Domains Discussed in the Study
	Design	Size	Purpose of Study	Data Collection Measures	Language of Instruction	Country	Age/Grade	Epistemic Injustice	Cultural Competence	Teacher Perception	Classroom Interactions	Disparities in Special Needs or Assessment
Åberg, I.B., 2021 [61]	Qual	5 T	Assess views on cultural differences	I, A	Norwegian	Norway	13–16/LS	-	-	✓	✓	-
Jaffe-Walter, R., 2013 [62]	Qual	14 T 32 S	How liberal educational discourses can lead to everyday exclusion and racialization	I,O	English	Denmark	LS	-	-	✓	✓	-
Jaffe-Walter, R., 2019 [63]	Qual	14 T 32 S		I,O	English	Denmark	LS	-	-	✓	✓	-
Juva, I., and Holm, G., 2017 [22]	Qual	28 T 1 TA	Examines the perception of marginalization among teachers and students	I,O	Finnish	Finland	LS	-	-	✓	✓	-
Karrebæk, M. S., 2012 [64]	Qual	2T 22 S	Examines socialization into healthy food practices in a heterogeneous primary classroom	A,V	Danish	Denmark	5–7/Pri	-	-	✓	✓	-
Karrebæk, M. S., 2013 [65]	Qual	2 T, 1 P 20 S		A,V	Danish	Denmark	5–7/Pri	-	-	✓	✓	-
Karrebæk, M. S., 2014 [66]	Qual	2 T, 1 P 23 S		A,V	Danish	Denmark	5–7/Pri	-	-	✓	✓	-
Layne et al., 2018 [67]	Qual	NA	Investigates the problematization of multiculturalism through the notion of success in Finnish schools	I	Finnish	Finland	Pri/LS/US	-	-	✓	-	✓

Note: Qual = Qualitative study, Quan = Quantitative Study, P = Principal, T = Teachers, TA = Teaching Assistants, S = Students I = Interviews, O = Observation, A = Audio Recording, V = Video Recording, Pri = Primary, LS = Lower Secondary, US = Upper Secondary. Age/Grade signifies the age and grade level of the students mentioned in the articles.

shows the articles’ study characteristics. There were five papers from Denmark, two from Finland and one from Norway. There were very few papers from Iceland and those that made it past the screening did not meet the inclusion criteria, since they focused on preschool, upper secondary or university students, and parents’ views. All eight of these studies looked at students from immigrant backgrounds, students with migrant backgrounds, and multicultural or ethnically diverse schools. Two studies were conducted in English, and mainly focused on Muslim students. Two studies focused on the views teachers had about cultural differences and student diversity. Three studies were from the same setting with a focus on healthy food and lunchtime interactions between teachers and students.

3.3. Epistemic Injustice

Our analysis of the articles was guided by the definition of “epistemic injustice”, although none of the articles contained this term. Eight articles [22,61,62,63,64,65,66] describe instances of epistemic injustice or epistemic exclusion.

3.4. Cultural Competence

In this section, we look at teacher reflections about their own cultural competence, about teaching students from immigrant backgrounds, their own exposure to other cultures and, finally, their openness towards other cultures.

3.4.1. Reflections on Cultural Competence

None of the articles mentioned teacher self-evaluations of cultural competence.

3.4.2. Teacher Reflections on Teaching Students from Immigrant Backgrounds

In two articles [61,67], teachers reflect on the complexities of teaching students from immigrant backgrounds. They demonstrate an awareness of their students’ cultural backgrounds and express a desire to incorporate their students’ cultural backgrounds into their teaching. One article [61] describes some teacher reflections on working with students from immigrant backgrounds. One particular teacher states that, as long as there are no language difficulties and the students are socially integrated, culture is irrelevant to teaching. Another stated that, although she does not take account of her students’ background, she sees them as individuals, accepting that their experiences constitute a part of them and she regards their diversity as a learning resource. Other teachers express hesitancy and demonstrate discomfort when discussing cultural backgrounds and differences. They indicate a perceived need to remain on guard in such discussions, for fear of what the students might say. In two articles [22,67], teachers say that they view their students as individuals, adding that the students in their school are tolerant and accepting of each other, regardless of skin color or cultural background [22]. In Juva and Holm [22] and Jaffe-Walter [63], teachers mention the focus on equality in schools, openness and creating a climate where all opinions are valued [63]. In two articles [62,63], teachers describe their role as helping their students to become individuals and their desire to support the welfare of Muslim girls and integrate them. In addition, the role of a “good teacher” that one teacher describes involves showing disapproval towards expressions of religious differences in his classroom in order to promote the “integration of immigrant girls” [62].

3.4.3. Exposure to Other Cultures

None of the articles describe teachers’ experience of or exposure to other cultures.

3.4.4. Openness

In five articles [62,63,64,65,66], teachers demonstrate a lack of openness to other practices. Teachers in Jaffe-Walter [62,63] mention that openness is required on the part of students in order to embrace Danish values. However, the teachers demonstrate a lack of openness towards Muslim practices by refusing to accept students’ answers in class while endorsing the stereotype that being a Muslim prevents the students from being individuals. Teachers in Karrebæk [64,65,66] display a lack of openness towards other types of food, saying that all students should have rye bread in their lunch boxes and this is what they should eat.

The idea of sameness is expressed in seven articles [22,61,62,63,64,65,66]. The definition of a successful immigrant is one who has assimilated or integrated into society [63]. The teachers in Juva and Holm [22] reveal similar beliefs by connecting good behavior to ethnic Finns. Teachers in Åberg [61] adopt the idea of sameness by avoiding discussions pertaining to different attitudes and issues related to them. Sameness in Karrebæk [64,65,66] is presented in the form of healthy food in the Danish context and exhibited through teacher disapproval of foods from other cultures.

3.5. Teacher Perceptions of Students

3.5.1. Culture and Stereotypes

This section focuses on teacher perceptions of other cultures and the way they stereotype their students. Three articles describe the negative perceptions teachers have of their students’ cultures. Teachers in Layne et al. [67] describe home cultures and the religious demands of students from immigrant backgrounds as a nuisance. In Jaffe-Walter [62,63], teachers regard cultural practices in Muslim families, religious affiliations and ethnic neighborhoods as having a negative effect on female students, adding that such aspects are oppressive and suppressive. Teachers believe that Muslim students’ cultural practices prevent them from being individuals, impeding their thinking skills and individual development. The teachers also believe that they lack engagement because of their religious beliefs. Furthermore, teachers think that students lack the ability to think radically and function according to the Danish value of openness, expressing the belief that being liberated about sex is a path to integration.

All eight articles describe the stereotypes teachers have of their students from immigrant backgrounds. In two articles [22,67], teachers assert that they see students as individuals, while, at the same time, assigning specific characteristics to immigrants, as described in Layne et al. [67], “all Muslim students are going to grow up homophobic”. Teachers in Juva and Holm [22] describe the school as a multicultural place where everyone is accepted and tolerated, independent of skin color but then categorize the students into groups such as the immigrants and the Finns, or the Somalis.

Four articles [61,64,65,66] do not contain descriptions of what the teachers think of other cultural practices or stereotypes, but voice opinions of their own culture and practices. Teachers in Åberg [61] feel that Norwegian students are more familiar with democracy than students from immigrant backgrounds. The idea of healthy food, described by the teachers in Karrebaek [64,65,66], is situated within the Danish context of rye bread and oats. Therefore, teachers see other types of foods, which are not the norm in Danish culture, as unhealthy, stating that students who do not eat rye bread are the ones who have more general problems and belong to the category of immigrants.

Only one article [67] is positive about the students’ cultural backgrounds. Two teachers, themselves of immigrant backgrounds, discuss the importance of bilingualism, family background, and a sense of belonging, and believe that students should have the opportunity to find out about their roots.

3.5.2. Behavior

Three articles [22,63,64] describe teacher perceptions of behavior among students from immigrant backgrounds. Teachers in Juva and Holm [22] perceive students from immigrant backgrounds to be antisocial and disturbing, and describe them as loud-mouthed, viewing their verbal interactions negatively. They add that students from immigrant backgrounds seem to need to emphasize their identities, which is not common behavior among the Finns. As opposed to ethnic Finns, where bad behavior is attributed to an individual, teachers categorize students from immigrant backgrounds, linking bad behavior to an entire cultural group, attributing this to culture or background. The teachers in Juva and Holm [22] describe two types of behavior—normal behavior, characterized as being motivated, with a good attitude and following time schedules, and behavior which is not normal. They add a third which they call ‘exceptions’, to describe well-behaved students from immigrant backgrounds.

Teachers in Jaffe-Walter [63] describe a lack of participation and engagement in students from immigrant backgrounds, and add that they never ask questions. Teachers in Karrebæk [64] do not mention the students’ behavior, but describe families who do not pack rye bread as difficult to deal with, associating a lack of rye bread in lunch boxes with attitudinal problems.

3.5.3. School Performance

The focus of this section is teacher perceptions of their students’ performance as learners. A total of five articles describe these perceptions. Two articles [22,67] describe teachers who refer to students as having poorer, more limited language skills. Both articles also mention a less promising future for these students. Students from immigrant backgrounds are expected to score lower and are directed to lower-level professions [67]. Considered to be a “challenging group”, students from immigrant backgrounds are predicted to have potential difficulties graduating and forming successful social relations. Though teachers have a generally negative perception of students from immigrant backgrounds, they hold positive perceptions of Russian and Estonian students, stating that they have more ambitious and positive attitudes than students from other immigrant backgrounds [22].

Teachers in Jaffe-Walter [63] state that their students lacked the ability to express critical views or form an opinion, and would prefer one-page assignments that required them to “write two numbers” or respond to yes or no questions. While teachers in Karrebæk [64,66] do not form an opinion about the performance of their students, they make statements during interactions with their students, expressing that those who consume rye bread will become smart and strong. Additionally, one teacher is observed addressing the class during lunch, stating that “students who brought rye bread are smart and wise”.

3.6. Student–Teacher Interactions

Seven articles contain descriptions of student–teacher interactions retrieved from transcribed observations of interactions in the classrooms and descriptions by teachers and students.

Teachers in Åberg [61] demonstrate reservations when discussing religious topics and express the need to show discretion about what they say, remain on guard and notice student reactions. Five studies [62,63,64,65,66] illustrate teacher skepticism about student answers. These are met with repeated questioning, leading to situations where students feel singled out. In one study [62], a student is met with repeated questioning from her teacher because her answer does not meet standard Danish liberal views. The question is rephrased and asked four times, ending with an address to the class to reflect on the student’s answer. Jaffe-Walter [62,63] observe that teachers urge students from immigrant backgrounds to question their beliefs, whereas they are never observed asking their Danish students to question their Danish or European ones. Classroom observations in Karrebæk [64,65,66] reveal that students with other types of food are questioned by their teacher, leading to occasions where students’ lunch boxes are checked and bags are searched. This also leads to interactions in which students are met with disbelief and further questioning if they truly do not have any rye bread. On the other hand, students who have rye bread as well as other food are told to consume the rye bread, if they start by eating other food, they are told to stop eating and eat the rye bread instead.

Three studies [22,62,63] show a difference in the treatment of students when they express cultural differences. In two of the studies [22,62], teachers voice the need to police students who express religious, cultural or linguistic differences. As a result, students in Jaffe-Walter’s [62] study report decreased support and a change in student–teacher relationships after they donned a hijab.

Six studies [22,62,63,64,65,66] demonstrate a difference in treatment between majority students and students from immigrant backgrounds. Jaffe-Walter [62] observe that sex education is conducted in extra Danish classes, rather than in regular classrooms, since it is the teachers’ intention to ‘liberate’ Muslim girls. In a later study, students from immigrant backgrounds are placed at the back of the classroom during a discussion with the Danish students. During this observation, the researcher notes that the teacher only focuses his attention on the Danish students and makes no effort to engage or include the students seated at the back of the classroom in the conversation [63]. Classroom observations by Juva and Holm [22] reveal that regular participation by students from immigrant backgrounds is taken as ‘mouthing off’. In one observation, a Somali student is silenced and reprimanded for not raising her hand while asking about a relevant topic, in contrast to a lack of intervention when ethnic Finns discuss topics unrelated to the class discussion. In Karrebæk [64,65,66], the majority students’ lunch boxes are rarely scrutinized, in contrast to the way bags are searched and lunch boxes are checked if they belong to students from immigrant backgrounds. Teachers are also observed to express pity for these students.

Three studies [22,63,64] describe teachers dismissing their students’ words and examples of racism. When a student explains his religion, the response from a teacher in Jaffe-Walter [63] is “it doesn’t really matter”. Juva and Holm [48] found that teachers ignored racist comments such as “the Somalis are making a ruckus again” considering it to be harmless and justifying it as the way students in a multicultural school interact. Teachers in Juva and Holm [48] are also dismissive of intergroup conflict between students from immigrant backgrounds and ethnic Finns, attributing this to individual feelings. In Karrebæk [64], students who express dislike for rye bread are dismissed for not telling the truth or are told to remove the toppings and eat the rye bread.

3.7. Disparities in Special Needs Education or Assessment

While none of the articles mention whether there is a disparity in who receives special educational services, two studies [67] reveal lower perceived academic performance of students from immigrant backgrounds. A student in Jaffe-Walter [62] reports experiencing a difference in their teacher’s perception of homework submission before and after donning a hijab, resulting in negative feedback to her parents. Two teachers from immigrant backgrounds in Layne [67] express concern that students are placed in special classes because of a lack of language proficiency in Finnish or their mother tongue, rather than a learning disability.

3.8. Segregation

None of the eight articles contain concrete descriptions of segregation; however, one of the articles mentions the formation of groups—Finns and immigrants [5].

3.9. Summary of the Findings

All the literature in this review, except for one article, describes teacher perceptions of students from immigrant backgrounds and types of classroom interaction. None of the literature mentions epistemic injustice, reflections on cultural competence, exposure to other cultures or segregation. Nor does any of the literature present concrete numbers about disparities in who receives special educational services.

Since one of our study aims is to find out whether teacher perceptions of immigrant students influence the type of interactions they have, in

Table 4. Summary of perceptions of teachers and student–teacher interactions.

Study	Perception	Interaction
Åberg, I.B., 2021 [61]	Norwegian students are more familiar with the values and practices of democracy, whereas minority students feel less connected to them	Teachers showed signs of discomfort and were hesitant to include the stories of students.
Jaffe-Walter, R., 2013 [62]	Female Muslim students were suppressed, oppressed and lack the freedom to choose	Repeated questioning of their choices in the classroom, discussion on premarital sex in extra danish class as opposed to the lack of sex education in the regular class.
Jaffe-Walter, R., 2013 [62]; Juva, I., and Holm, G., 2017 [22]	Believe that students have to adopt Danish or Finnish values	Intervened whenever students expressed cultural differences. Teachers were perceived as being stricter by students wearing a hijab.
Jaffe-Walter, R., 2013 [62], 2019 [63]	View that immigrant students are held back from development due to religion and culture	Students from immigrant backgrounds are repeatedly asked to question their beliefs as opposed to the lack of such requests on Danish students. Dismissed student’s explanation of his religion.
Jaffe-Walter, R., 2019 [63]	Perceived students as lacking engagement and opinions	Students from immigrant backgrounds were placed in the back of the class with no effort from the teacher to engage or bring those students into the conversation.
Juva, I., and Holm, G., 2017 [22]	Perceived students from immigrant backgrounds as loud and mouthing off.	Silencing the student asking a relevant question while ignoring Finnish students who were having conversations unrelated to class.
Juva, I., and Holm, G., 2017 [22]	Perceived students from immigrant backgrounds as loud and mouthing off.	Silencing the student asking a relevant question while ignoring Finnish students who were having conversations unrelated to class.
Juva, I., and Holm, G., 2017 [22]	Perceived the students to be tolerant and accepting toward each other due to the diversity of the school.	Ignored racist comments.
Juva, I., and Holm, G., 2017 [22]; Layne et al., 2018 [67]	Perception that students from immigrant backgrounds have poor language skills and lower performance.	Guided to lower professions.
Karrebaek, M.S., 2012 [64], 2013 [65], 2014 [66]	Rye bread and oats are healthy food.	Repeated questioning of “why/if the student has rye bread, when there was a lack of rye bread or when students did not have oats for breakfast. Rummaging the bags and lunch boxes. Expressing pity to those who do not have rye bread. Dismissed students when they expressed dislike for rye bread. Expressed that those who have rye bread are smart.

we present a summary of teacher perceptions and student–teacher interactions influenced by this perception.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study is to locate studies in the literature that discuss the concept of epistemic injustice in relation to teacher perceptions that influenced their classroom interactions. The findings were arranged into five main categories: epistemic injustice, cultural competence, teacher perceptions, student–teacher interactions and disparities in special needs education. Although none of the articles in this review mentioned epistemic injustice, an analysis of the literature revealed instances of epistemic exclusion, as well as experiences of epistemic injustice as a result of teacher perceptions of students from immigrant backgrounds.

We noted a lack evaluation of teachers’ cultural competence, although teachers were aware of their students’ cultural backgrounds. Despite this awareness, the majority of the studies indicated that teachers thought the cultural backgrounds of students from immigrant backgrounds were irrelevant and demonstrated their own resistance to these. This was seen in a reluctance to discuss issues, hesitation about including students’ stories [61] and a perceived need to intervene when students express their cultural differences [62]. Epistemic exclusion occurs when an individual is denied the opportunity to contribute as an epistemic agent [49]. This hesitancy to include students’ stories and the perceived need to intervene when they express cultural differences inadvertently silence the students’ voices and create a context of epistemic exclusion, since they deny students the opportunity to contribute as epistemic agents of knowledge acquired from their experiences and backgrounds. Furthermore, it reinforces the idea of neutrality in the context of Nordic education, which fails to recognize students’ cultural backgrounds.

Teachers in Jaffe-Walter [62,63] suggested that students need to demonstrate openness and open-mindedness, and embrace the values and practices of the country they now live in, but failed to recognize their own lack of openness towards their students. This not only denies students from immigrant backgrounds the opportunity to connect with their own identities, but reinforces the idea of a normal student who is predominantly white and has Nordic values.

Although some of the teachers in the studies stated that they saw their students as individuals [67], this did not stop them from forming stereotypes, which were revealed as the interviews progressed. Grouping students and referring to them as immigrants and Finns, as seen in Juva and Holm [22], categorizes students from immigrant backgrounds and places them in a position where bad behavior is thought to result from their culture and their group identity, as opposed to individual action. One example was one teacher’s perception of students from immigrant backgrounds being ‘loud’ and ‘mouthing off’. This led to unfair treatment of a student who was reprimanded for trying to ask a relevant question, while Finns were not reprimanded for discussing topics irrelevant to the class. We note two issues concerning this incident. The first refers to the student’s identity. By reprimanding a student from an immigrant background and ignoring the Finnish students’ behavior, the teacher is creating an unfair situation, highlighting the difference in identity between the student and the Finns, and potentially contributing to the further segregation of students from immigrant backgrounds, creating an ‘us and them’ situation. Secondly, by letting her perceptions that students from immigrant backgrounds are ‘loud’ and ‘mouthing off’ cloud her judgement, the teacher causes the students to lose a learning opportunity, placing them at a disadvantage in terms of their learning.

Negative teacher perceptions of their students as epistemic agents resulted in the epistemic exclusion of students from immigrant backgrounds. A teacher in Jaffe-Walter [63] perceived students from immigrant backgrounds as unable to think critically and not engaging in class. This led to the organization of the classroom in such a way that the students from immigrant backgrounds were placed at the back of the class creating a segregated environment. Since his attention was only directed at the Danish students, and he made no effort to engage or include the students from immigrant backgrounds in conversation, this teacher failed to acknowledge their presence or recognize them as contributing epistemic agents, making them invisible.

Epistemic injustice is psychological harm suffered by an individual in relation to their capacity as a knower. The focus of this article is testimonial injustice, which is defined as prejudice that causes the hearer to ascribe a deflated level to credibility to the speaker [16]. The literature presents multiple scenarios of epistemic injustice, specifically, testimonial injustice, where students were subjected to repeated questioning when their answers were not accepted because they deviated from their teacher’s expectations [62,64]. Additionally, students were dismissed for providing information [63,64] to which the teacher responded by saying “it doesn’t really matter”, it was not true, or by asking them to remove toppings and eat their rye bread. Such responses did not address the issues at hand, for instance in Karrebæk [64], when students voiced their dislike of rye bread their teachers said they were lying, since they had eaten it many times, albeit unwillingly. Such practices make students feel singled out [62] or create scenarios in which students are quick to call out others who do not follow classroom practices [64,65,66].

Although the literature did not mention segregation, singling out students and treating majority students and students from immigrant backgrounds inconsistently can potentially lead to the formation of stereotypes and segregation. Additionally, as we have mentioned, continuous experiences of epistemic injustice erode an individual’s confidence so that they begin to lose confidence in their general abilities, beliefs, and their justification for those beliefs [16]. The above paragraphs present experiences of epistemic injustice and epistemic exclusion. The students who faced the in-class scrutiny described in the literature withdrew from social interactions, as they felt it was not safe to respond to anti-Muslim discourse. Furthermore, they stopped seeking support from their teachers, due to misrecognition and for fear of being penalized, belittled or challenged [62,63]. These findings are in line with the theory, and place the students at a disadvantage in their learning because they have stopped seeking support from their teachers and cannot clarify what they do not understand. By not seeking support, teachers cannot know what the student is struggling with. Moreover, withdrawing from social interactions leaves the students with fewer opportunities for classroom participation, further affecting teacher perceptions.

4.1. Limitations

The results of this review demonstrate how negative teacher perceptions and stereotypes of students from immigrant backgrounds influence student–teacher interactions, leading to experiences of epistemic injustice in the classroom. The literature has not provided us with concrete answers as to whether this leads to disparities in who receives special education services and to further segregation. It should be noted that, although there were experiences of epistemic injustice among students from immigrant backgrounds, five out of eight of the studies focused on Denmark and did not provide sufficient information about the other Nordic countries.

Moreover, although the literature revealed instances of epistemic injustices and exclusions, it did not consider the teachers’ cultural competence or experiences. Investigating teachers’ experiences of other cultures and whether they grew up in a culturally diverse environment are important for our understanding of why epistemic injustice occurs. Since our perceptions and stereotypes are culturally formed, they influence our understanding and openness towards other cultures, which may have an impact on student–teacher interactions.

4.2. Suggestions for Future Research

Although the current review provides some insight into experiences of epistemic injustice among students from immigrant backgrounds, more questions for future research remain. These include whether epistemic injustice contributes to disparities in who receives special educational services and leads to further segregation. Given the complexity of human thoughts and behavior, research into epistemic injustice needs to be carefully planned. Researchers should be careful not to be too quick to place blame on teachers or suggest they are at fault. Research into epistemic injustice should be used to enlighten practices. Therefore, it should include teachers as part of the brainstorming and reflective process, since they are on the front line and can provide valuable knowledge to support research. Teachers are placed in demanding situations in which they have to devote attention to a whole classroom of students. With multiple students to care for and given the stressors of time constraints, it is sometimes difficult for teachers to be reflective within the moment. Thus classroom observations should be performed with the help of video recordings and a video annotation tool, for teachers to analyze and reflect.

4.3. Implications

The data gathered both for this review and for future research may highlight important and potentially overlooked issues in the pursuit of inclusion. These data examine the well-being of students from immigrant backgrounds, which arise from student–teacher interactions, since they impact on a student’s sense of belonging and how included they feel in school. These findings can also be applied to students with special educational needs, since epistemic injustice does not only impact on students from immigrant backgrounds, but on anyone who suffers prejudice or stereotyping. Data from this review reveal a gap in knowledge about inclusion and we hope that filling this gap will lead to research into epistemic injustice in schools, as well as to developments in teacher training, and improved strategies and communication methods to keep students within the regular classroom, rather than taking them out of class.

Additionally, although procedures such as setting inclusion criteria and having an interrater assess the articles’ quality reduce bias, it remains the case that article selection is guided by the author’s own curiosity. Even when we apply these procedures, questions remain, such as ‘How well do these articles answer the research questions?’ and ‘What are the author and interrater thresholds in assessing the articles?’

5. Conclusions

Previous research shows that teacher perceptions affect the accuracy of their judgements of students and their feedback. However, so far, no research has truly focused on instances of epistemic injustice experienced by students and how this affects them. This review has provided us with some insight into the relationship between teacher perceptions and the type of student–teacher relationship. Negative teacher perspectives negatively influenced student–teacher relationships, which contributed to experiences of epistemic injustice. Additionally, these negative perceptions created situations where the students were treated unfairly; in some instances teachers were more strict and quick to reprimand students from immigrant backgrounds. While this review has provided evidence of experiences of epistemic injustice, as well as student self-silencing as a result of these experiences, most of the literature was limited to Denmark. More research needs to be undertaken in order to find out whether the negative perceptions and stereotypes that teachers hold result in experiences of epistemic injustice. The concern here is that, if this does indeed occur, then students from immigrant backgrounds are at a disadvantage in their learning. Furthermore, experiences of epistemic injustice have an impact on their psychological well-being and the development of their identity.