相同,相同但不同?2015年和2022年欧盟难民抵达框架的话语网络分析。

IF 2.8 1区 社会学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Pub Date : 2024-11-22 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1080/1369183X.2024.2431053
Lara Sosa Popovic, Natalie Welfens
{"title":"相同,相同但不同?2015年和2022年欧盟难民抵达框架的话语网络分析。","authors":"Lara Sosa Popovic, Natalie Welfens","doi":"10.1080/1369183X.2024.2431053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The European Union (EU) experienced two major instances of refugee influx: in 2015, refugees, mainly from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq fled civil war, persecution, and dire conditions in neighbouring countries and in 2022, Ukrainians fled from Russia's full-scale invasion. Fusing theoretical insights on framing and crisification of migration, we ask: How do EU actors frame situations of refugee mass influx? Employing a Discourse Network Analysis, we examine EU representatives' framing of both instances with respect to three analytical foci: (1) who or what they considered to be in crisis, (2) their framing of refugees; and (3) who they saw to be responsible for solving the crisis. We show how, in 2015, EU representatives framed mass displacement predominantly as a crisis at and of Europe's borders, and refugees as threats to Member States' public, economic and cultural security. In contrast, in 2022, crisis framings are almost absent or pertain to Ukraine's - and by extension the EU's - security. Ukrainian protection seekers are framed as ethnically and culturally similar and their protection as a humanitarian imperative. Our analysis empirically substantiates debates about double standards in refugee governance and draws attention to actor constellations and the factors that shape crisification of mobility.</p>","PeriodicalId":48371,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies","volume":"51 3","pages":"609-632"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11750152/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Same, same but different? A Discourse Network Analysis of the EU's framings of refugee arrivals in 2015 and 2022.\",\"authors\":\"Lara Sosa Popovic, Natalie Welfens\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1369183X.2024.2431053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The European Union (EU) experienced two major instances of refugee influx: in 2015, refugees, mainly from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq fled civil war, persecution, and dire conditions in neighbouring countries and in 2022, Ukrainians fled from Russia's full-scale invasion. Fusing theoretical insights on framing and crisification of migration, we ask: How do EU actors frame situations of refugee mass influx? Employing a Discourse Network Analysis, we examine EU representatives' framing of both instances with respect to three analytical foci: (1) who or what they considered to be in crisis, (2) their framing of refugees; and (3) who they saw to be responsible for solving the crisis. We show how, in 2015, EU representatives framed mass displacement predominantly as a crisis at and of Europe's borders, and refugees as threats to Member States' public, economic and cultural security. In contrast, in 2022, crisis framings are almost absent or pertain to Ukraine's - and by extension the EU's - security. Ukrainian protection seekers are framed as ethnically and culturally similar and their protection as a humanitarian imperative. Our analysis empirically substantiates debates about double standards in refugee governance and draws attention to actor constellations and the factors that shape crisification of mobility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies\",\"volume\":\"51 3\",\"pages\":\"609-632\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11750152/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2024.2431053\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2024.2431053","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧盟经历了两次大规模的难民涌入:2015年,难民(主要来自叙利亚、阿富汗和伊拉克)逃离邻国的内战、迫害和恶劣条件;2022年,乌克兰人逃离俄罗斯的全面入侵。融合关于移民框架和危机化的理论见解,我们提出:欧盟行为体如何构建难民大规模涌入的情况?采用话语网络分析,我们从三个分析焦点来研究欧盟代表对这两个实例的框架:(1)他们认为谁或什么处于危机中,(2)他们对难民的框架;(3)他们认为谁有责任解决危机。我们展示了2015年,欧盟代表如何将大规模流离失所主要视为欧洲边境的危机,将难民视为对成员国公共、经济和文化安全的威胁。相比之下,在2022年,危机框架几乎不存在,或者与乌克兰(乃至欧盟)的安全有关。寻求保护的乌克兰人在种族和文化上都是相似的,对他们的保护是人道主义的当务之急。我们的分析从经验上证实了关于难民治理中双重标准的争论,并引起了人们对行动者星座和形成流动性危机的因素的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Same, same but different? A Discourse Network Analysis of the EU's framings of refugee arrivals in 2015 and 2022.

The European Union (EU) experienced two major instances of refugee influx: in 2015, refugees, mainly from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq fled civil war, persecution, and dire conditions in neighbouring countries and in 2022, Ukrainians fled from Russia's full-scale invasion. Fusing theoretical insights on framing and crisification of migration, we ask: How do EU actors frame situations of refugee mass influx? Employing a Discourse Network Analysis, we examine EU representatives' framing of both instances with respect to three analytical foci: (1) who or what they considered to be in crisis, (2) their framing of refugees; and (3) who they saw to be responsible for solving the crisis. We show how, in 2015, EU representatives framed mass displacement predominantly as a crisis at and of Europe's borders, and refugees as threats to Member States' public, economic and cultural security. In contrast, in 2022, crisis framings are almost absent or pertain to Ukraine's - and by extension the EU's - security. Ukrainian protection seekers are framed as ethnically and culturally similar and their protection as a humanitarian imperative. Our analysis empirically substantiates debates about double standards in refugee governance and draws attention to actor constellations and the factors that shape crisification of mobility.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
157
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (JEMS) publishes the results of first-class research on all forms of migration and its consequences, together with articles on ethnic conflict, discrimination, racism, nationalism, citizenship and policies of integration. Contributions to the journal, which are all fully refereed, are especially welcome when they are the result of original empirical research that makes a clear contribution to the field of migration JEMS has a long-standing interest in informed policy debate and contributions are welcomed which seek to develop the implications of research for policy innovation, or which evaluate the results of previous initiatives. The journal is also interested in publishing the results of theoretical work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信