This paper critically examines how European research has addressed the relationship between migration and Vocational Education and Training (VET, hereinafter) over the past two decades. This contribution adopts an analytical approach, drawing on the corpus assembled through a recently published systematic review (SR, hereinafter) as reported in Bell Sebastián et al. (2025), and re-analysing it from a mapping/meta-research perspective, to reflect on the most salient research trends, the conceptual frameworks employed and the areas that remain underexplored in this field, as identified by the literature, which consistently points to the limited, fragmented and uneven nature of the existing scientific production (Aleghfeli et al., 2024; Jørgensen et al., 2021).

In this way, VET systems in Europe are increasingly being positioned as crucial elements for social inclusion and labour market integration, especially in the context of growing migratory flows (Avis et al., 2022; Jeon, 2019). For this reason, research focusing on the educational trajectories of migrant students in different national contexts has steadily increased (Echeverría & Martínez-Clares, 2021; Gessler et al., 2021). However, several studies have highlighted that there has been less attention to how this body of knowledge has been constructed (Gessler & Siemer, 2020) or to gaps in institutional dimensions (Lyckander et al., 2025) that remain on the margins of academic debate.

Accordingly, this paper addresses three interrelated research questions: (1) What thematic, methodological, and theoretical patterns characterise European research on migration and VET? (2) Which dimensions of VET systems and integration processes have been underexplored in existing research? and (3) What implications do these patterns have for future research agendas and to produce knowledge that informs policymaking in the field of European VET?

Beyond organising what is already known about VET and migration, this mapping-oriented analysis allows us to observe how available knowledge has been constructed, which approaches have gained greater prominence, and which aspects have received less attention. Accordingly, a reflexive approach is adopted towards the scientific production reviewed, examining patterns of concentration and visibility across different national contexts, languages of publication and academic traditions, as well as the unequal representation of methodological approaches or the voices of students who have experienced migration. This perspective is key, as it not only helps to identify thematic gaps, but also to understand how objects of study have been defined and which dimensions have been more accessible within academic debate.

Based on this analysis, the contribution is situated within a tension that runs through much of the literature on VET and migration. On the one hand, there are approaches that explain students’ difficulties in individualised or culturalised terms; on the other, there are studies that link these obstacles to factors such as discrimination, institutional segmentation, administrative uncertainty or the limited recognition of prior trajectories, all within a broader framework of structural and institutional conditions. This highlights the need to complement the prevailing focus on students’ experiences and barriers with more systematic attention to the conditions under which VET systems operate, since it is at this level that the effectiveness of inclusive measures and the possibilities for transfer across different European contexts are largely determined, according to what has been reviewed in the literature.

The paper is based on the corpus identified through an SR of scientific literature focusing on students of migrant background within European VET systems, covering publications from 2003 to 2024. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021; Urrutia & Bonfill, 2010) and included studies indexed in recognised international databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC and Dialnet, published in several European languages. Thanks to this approach, a broad and diverse corpus was created, reflecting different national contexts and academic traditions across Europe. Unlike other reviews that focus on synthesising empirical results, this proposal offers an analytical reading of the corpus, from both a descriptive and interpretative perspective. The analysis focuses on examining how research on migration and VET in Europe has evolved, considering the temporal development of publications, their geographical distribution, the most predominant disciplines, the methods used and the theoretical frameworks applied, as well as the delineation of research topics and the attention given to certain analytical approaches. The analysis places particular emphasis on how literature presents challenges and facilitating factors in VET trajectories, the perspectives of the most prioritised actors, and the ways in which VET systems are conceptualised within the academic field. Overall, this is an interpretative and critical approach that seeks to generate knowledge about how knowledge on migration and VET is produced, rather than simply synthesising empirical effects or evaluating the impact of specific interventions.

Research in Europe regarding migration and VET has mostly focused on understanding individual challenges and support needs, putting significant weight on students' traits, their transitions, and the outcomes they achieve. This approach has certainly been useful in highlighting issues of unequal participation and achievement, but it tends to portray VET systems as fixed frameworks instead of places where processes of inclusion and exclusion are constantly being shaped. Because of this, the complex dynamics like institutional structures, teaching practices, and decision-making within VET often haven't been explored enough, which limits our understanding of how inequalities come about, persist, or get addressed, often blaming individuals instead of looking at the broader system. At the same time, this mapping shows that the main research narratives are influenced by inconsistent visibility, preferred methodologies, and national focuses. The creation of knowledge in this field has mostly been led by places with robust data systems and through methods that favor broad system-level indicators instead of localized viewpoints. Comparative studies often fall short by being more descriptive than analytical. Research adopting interpretative or critical approaches reveals VET as a complex arena, simultaneously associated with opportunities and with boundary-making processes linked to institutional practices and social hierarchies. Altogether, these findings imply that future research should shift from just documenting disparities to exploring how VET systems are understood and studied, and how these perspectives influence what is seen, compared, and acted upon in European discussions about migration and VET.

Aleghfeli, Y., McIntyre, J., Hunt, L., & Stone, C. (2024). Safety, Belonging and Success in Education for Refugees in Europe: A Systematic Review. European Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12852. Avis, J., Orr, K., & Warmington, P. (2022). Beyond ‘migration’and ‘inclusion’in work life: Racialisation and VET. In L. Moreno Herrera, M. Teräs, P. Gougoulakis, & J. Kontio (Eds.), Migration and inclusion in work life-the role of VET: Emerging issues in research on vocational education & training, 7, 27–59. Bell Sebastián, J., Marhuenda Fluixá, F., & Carmona Rodríguez, C. (2025). Vocational education and training pathways of students with a migrant background in Europe: a systematic review. Educational Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2025.2514038 Echeverría Samanes, B., & Martínez Clares, P. (2021). Hacia un ecosistema de investigación sobre formación profesional en España. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 39(1), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.424901 Gessler, M., Nägele, C., & Stalder, B. E. (2021). Scoping review on research at the boundary between learning and working: A bibliometric mapping analysis of the last decade. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 8(4), 170–206. https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.8.4.8 Gessler, M., & Siemer, C. (2020). Umbrella review: Methodological review of reviews published in peer-reviewed journals with a substantial focus on vocational education and training research. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 7(1), 91–125. https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.7.1.5 Jeon, S. (2019). Unlocking the potential of migrants: Cross-country analysis. OECD Publishing. Jørgensen, C. H., Hautz, H., & Li, J. (2021). The role of vocational education and training in the integration of refugees in Austria, Denmark and Germany. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 8(3), 276–299. https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.8.3.2 Lyckander, R. H., Wollscheid, S., & Lynnebakke, B. (2025). Integration of immigrants into vocational education and training in Europe: A scoping review. Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 15(4), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.2515424 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M, & Moher, D. (2021). Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003 Urrútia, G., & Bonfill, X. (2010). Declaración PRISMA: Una propuesta para mejorar la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis. Medicina Clínica, 135(11), 507–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2010.01.015