The way we talk about complex issues shapes how we understand and respond to them. In social science, different ways of presenting an issue are called ‘frames’, which are like lenses that highlight certain aspects of a topic while downplaying others. For instance, ‘framing’ migration as a security issue creates a very different picture compared to discussing it as a human rights matter. Professor Özlem Atikcan and her colleagues at the University of Warwick, Sofie Roehrig and Tim Henrichsen, have studied how conversations about migration evolved between 2000 and 2020. Read More
They used a method called Discourse Network Analysis to map connections between different organisations and their arguments as networks, analysing over 12,000 public statements. They also interviewed 16 officials from organisations involved in migration policy. In doing so, they identified key shifts in public discourse over the 20-year period.
The researchers found that before 2015, the debate was dominated by two competing frames. Government officials typically used security frames, focusing on border control and potential threats, while humanitarian organisations used human rights frames, emphasising the protection of vulnerable people. International organisations such as the UN tried to balance these different perspectives.
However, the 2015/2016 so-called migration crisis was an opportunity for the framing of migration to change, and marked a significant shift in public discourse. As more refugees arrived in Europe, governments could gain a stronger voice in the debate, following the lead of a new group of more radical anti-migration governments that attracted the others to join in on their anti-migration discourse. Humanitarian organisations, on the other hand, became less prominent.
Competing approaches emerged: some supported sharing responsibility across European countries through EU-led measures, while others pushed for keeping migrants outside of Europe by ramping up borders and making deals with third countries.
An interesting phenomenon the researchers identified was ‘frame drain’ – when certain ways of talking about an issue become widely adopted but lose their practical impact. For instance, while more groups started using human rights language during the crisis, this didn’t lead to more human rights-focused policies.
After 2016, the debate settled into a new pattern. Eastern European governments often framed migration as a threat to national sovereignty by migrants and EU-dictated policies, while Western European countries and EU institutions promoted a softer approach to border control and focussed on returning refugees or preventing them from reaching Europe. Meanwhile, humanitarian organisations continued framing migration in terms of human rights but found their perspective less influential.
The research by Atikcan and her colleagues shows how major events can reshape debates. The so-called migration crisis didn’t just intensify existing arguments – it created new ways of talking about migration and shifted power between different groups. Understanding these shifts matters, because how we talk about migration shapes the policies that affect people’s lives. The future of migration in Europe will depend, in part, on how governments, humanitarian organisations and international organisations talk about it.
