The Voices of the Unheard: Migrant Representation Within Digital Europe

!

!

!

The Voices of the Unheard: Migrant Representation

Within Digital Europe

!

Master Thesis

Written by: Karsten Swaak

Student Number: s2388464

Supervised by: Johannes Vüllers

Leiden University

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

MSc Crisis and Security Management

!

Abstract

The topic of migration has been a highly politicized and mediatized issue within Europe for the past few years. The majority of the publications within Europe’s media landscape, however, talk about the subject of migration without actually talking to the people who represent the topic in question. Consequently, a certain order of communication seems to be in place where the voices of migrants and refugees are valued less than those of others. Despite there being this disbalance in migrant representation, there are online initiatives who pledge to counteract this high level of silencing, so-called digital media platforms. Even these alternative online platforms are also prone to developing their own orders of communication and thereby might not turn out to be the equal spaces of representation they initially appear to be. Hence, this thesis is driven by an interest in comprehending the manner in which the visibility of refugees is regulated within these digital media spaces and asks whether migrants and refugees can successfully put forward their voice within these initiatives. Through a Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis of 55 stories published on a selection of two types of these initiatives, three institutional platforms versus three grassroots platforms, the analysis finds that even within these digital spaces that promise to give the unheard a voice, certain measures of silencing are present. The comparison of the narratives published on the two different types of platforms shows that within the institutional initiatives a narrative of critique towards the European Union is filtered out. As a result, on the grassroots side of digital Europe, the migrant has a larger chance at having their voice successfully published and truly valued.

Table of Contents

Abstract………...1

Chapter 1. Introduction……….………..3

Chapter 2. Literature Review……….……….6

2.1 Migrant Representation within Mass Media……….….6

2.2 Migrant Representation within Digital Media Platforms………..10

Chapter 3. Theoretical Framework……….………...12

3.1 The Wider Context: The Underlying Power Relations Behind Silencing……….12

3.2 Journalism as Performativity……….15

3.3 Couldry’s Politics of Voice………...16

3.4 Grassroots vs. Institutional Digital Media Platforms………....18

Chapter 4. Methodology……….………...19 4.1 Data Collection……….………....19 4.2 Method……….……….21 4.3 Method Application……….……….23 4.4 Shortcomings……….………...25 Chapter 5. Analysis……….………..26 5.1 Institutional initiatives……….……….26

5.1.1 The First Dimension: The Discursive Patterns Found Within the Texts……….27

5.1.2 ​The Second Dimension: The Wider Social Context and Discourses………..​34

5.2 Grassroots Initiatives………​....35

5.2.1 ​The First Dimension: The Discursive Patterns Found Within the Texts………....36

5.2.2 _​The Second Dimension: The Wider Social Context and Discourses……….._​43

Chapter 6. Discussion………..._​45

6.1 The Third Dimension: Institutional Initiatives………._​45

6.2 The Third Dimension: Grassroots initiatives………..._​47 Chapter 7. Conclusion………..5_​1 Bibliography_​………...…..5_​4

Chapter 1: Introduction

As of May 2015, the increased influx of migrants and refugees traveling towards Europe was coined ‘’the refugee crisis’’ and turned into a major policy issue and focal point for mainstream European media (Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 614). The events which put the topic of migration higher on the public and political agenda were the two heavily publicized deadly shipwrecks that occured off the coast of the Italian island Lampedusa (Ibid.). The aftermath of these tragic events was followed by an extensive period in which the media was dominated by compelling headlines and powerful images regarding the migration issue. Surprisingly, however, a fundamental contradiction developed as there was, and still is, a strong imbalance between the hypervisibility which the refugees and migrants enjoy within the media and their extremely limited capacity of voicing their concerns within this same context (Rodriques & Gifford, 2010, p. 33; Horsti, 2016, p. 15; Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2016, p. 341; Chouliaraki & Stollic, 2017, p. 78). Put differently, there seems to be a paradoxical state of affairs in which the majority of the publications that talk about the subject of migration do so without actually talking to the people who directly represent the topic in question, the refugees and migrants themselves. As a result, a certain communicative order is in place in which the migrants and refugees are perpetually silenced and more importance is placed on the voices of others, such as politicians (Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 620).

There are, however, _​a small number of digital media initiatives that do publish the stories of these migrants and refugees and thereby introduce narratives, or discourses, that directly challenge the disbalance that is found within the representational space of European mass media. Nevertheless, the literature on migrant representation within the media has often sidelined these initiatives as they fall outside the binary boundaries of social media versus mainstream media (Georgiou, 2018, p. 56). It is, however precisely these initiatives that should not be overlooked as they provide one of the sole spaces within Europe’s media landscape where migrants do not only get to speak, but could also occasionally be heard. They are therefore the primary contributor to the limited organized efforts that aim to counter this disbalance of representation within the mass media and deserve more attention within the scholarly field that focuses on migrant representation. These digital representational spaces, however, are also battlefields in which individuals attempt to make their voices heard (Gajjala, 2013, p. 16). Hence, even these digital initiatives that aim to let the subaltern speak, represent contested spaces for recognition, visibility and voice. As a result, these platforms are thereby also susceptible to reproducing a certain order of communication in which some voices are put forward more than others. This thesis is thereby driven by an interest in comprehending the manner in which the visibility of refugees is regulated within these digital media spaces. Hence, the question which this thesis aims to answer is: _{​Under what conditions have refugees been able to successfully voice their histories,} journeys and current concerns within digital Europe?

This study will examine in what way and with which discursive and visual modes of expression these online media platforms provide an alternative digital arena for political action that can potentially challenge the predominant negative discourses and the voicelessness of refugees and migrants within the mainstream European media (Thorbj_​ø_​rnsrud & Figenschou, 2016, p. 348). The theoretical argument that will be tested therefore posits that the digital media platforms can potentially provide alternative spaces of representation through which migrants and refugees should be able to expand the discursive modes of expressing politics and thereby obtain the ability of introducing counternarratives that could go against the dominant dehumanizing narratives found within mainstream media (Nikunen, 2019; Thorbj_​ø_​rnsrud & Figenschou, 2016; Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017; Chouliaraki & Stolic, 2017). Whether these digital platforms actually successfully provide these types of spaces will be assessed through a Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA) of the migrant stories that have been published on a selection of six digital media platforms that claim to give the subaltern a voice. Half of the analyzed initiatives are created by institutions whereas the other half are organized at the grassroots level, and they are all characterized by their aim to provide a representational space for those that are underrepresented. The analysis finds that overall, within the institutional platforms the migrants are characterized as vulnerable, dependent and non-political, whereas in the grassroots initiatives they are characterized as vulnerable but agentive and political subjects. As a result, a narrative that is critical of the European Union is identified in the grassroots initiatives whereas it is not present in the institutional initiatives. A certain measure of silencing is thus found within the publications of the institutional digital media platforms.

The research question is academically relevant as the structural and practical obstacles that complicate the media access of marginalized or subaltern groups, such as refugees, have rarely been discussed within the literary body that focuses on the representation of migrants within the media (Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2016, p. 350). Additionally, it is precisely these often overlooked online platforms that are crucial to analyze when one wants to see how extensive the reach of Europe’s communicative order is, i.e., to see whether the same silencing patterns occur within the initiatives that supposedly are aimed at countering the order in which migrants voices are not heard. Moreover, this research is societally relevant as the media has a strong influence on the manner in which the public understands and deals with the issue of migration. It is therefore important to analyze the initiatives that aim to provide a different understanding, as these might alter the public’s often negative opinion with regards to the migration issue. It is furthermore societally relevant as it delves into the migrant’s right to freedom of expression which they are denied within the majority mainstream media and may even be limited in the digital media initiatives which claim to give them a voice. A potential answer to the main research question should therefore reveal who is silenced and who gets to speak within digital Europe. First of all, the relevant body of scholarship regarding

migrant representation within mainstream and alternative media is introduced within the literature review. Secondly, the theoretical concepts relevant to understanding the voices of migrants and refugees, and the lack thereof, within the media will be explicated in the theoretical framework. Thirdly, the methodological foundation of the analysis, the MCDA method, will be explained in the methodology chapter. Fourth and lastly, the analysis will be performed after which the empirical findings will be interpreted in the discussion section.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The literature review will commence with a discussion of the relevant body of scholarship which concerns the writings regarding the mainstream mediatization of migrants and the way they are represented within these publications. These writings are introduced in order to understand the current situation of migrants within popular as well as alternative media outlets. Additionally, the review shows what has currently been written and thereby also what is missing from this body of literature; there is a lack of research with regard to analyzing alternative media outlets, in this case the digital representational initiatives in which migrants themselves voice their stories. The final part of the review will introduce the few authors who have dared to delve into this research gap, in order the set the stage for the research area, and relevancy, of the topic.

2.1 Migrant Representation Within Mass Media

The subject of this thesis belongs to a broader body of research within the category of migration and media studies which mainly concerns itself with studying the manner in which refugees are portrayed within the media (van Dijk, 1991; Wright, 2002; Triandafyllidou, 2013; and, for the recent crisis, Giannakopoulos, 2016; Musaro, 2017; Berry et al., 2015; Gillespie et al., 2016, Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2016; Georgiou & Zaborowski, 2017, Chouliaraki & Stollic 2017, Chouliaraki, Georgiou & Zaborowski, 2017; Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017). The majority of the literature that has been written on the portrayal of migrants has concerned itself with the most dominantly researched media outlet, that of newspapers (Horsti, 2016, p. 2). The manner in which the migrant is depicted within this strand of the media landscape is characterized by an underlying principle of illegality.

There are numerous scholars who found that this ‘’illegality narrative’’ is consistently linked to the portrayal of migrants even if it does not align with their actual status (Horsti, 2007, 2008; Suro, 2008; Stewart, Pitts & Osborne, 2011). Consequently, migrants, and those ethnic groups which resemble their characteristics, are branded with the metonym of illegality which, according to Horsti (2007), results in a systematic habit whereby the reasons behind choosing to emigrate and the processes surrounding it are backgrounded within the stories that are published in the mainstream media (p. 152). This attribute of illegality is accompanied by two dominant narratives which together cause the migrant to be identified as an inconclusive figure; they are portrayed either as a threat, or as a victim (Chouliaraki, Georgiou & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 8). Put differently, the figure of the migrant is framed in connection to these two contradictory positions, which results in the migrant being portrayed as an individual essentially characterized by ambivalence as they are suspended between the notions of malevolence and victimhood (Chouliaraki, Georgiou & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 5; Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 616). On the one hand, the refugee is depicted as a victim of

geopolitical conflict who requires requires protection (Chouliaraki, Georgiou & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 8). On the other hand, migrants are posited to be a threat to the safety of the Western world and should consequently be rejected by the countries which they are trying to reach (Ibid.). In both narratives, the ambivalent representations of migrants seem to uphold a Western image of the migrant as a voiceless ‘’other’’ (Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 616). Critical studies argue that this continuous shift of frames between the evil-doing terrorist and the voiceless migrant fails to capture the ‘humanity’ of these individuals (Chouliaraki, Georgiou & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 8).f

According to Chouliaraki & Zaborowski (2017), _{​the victimhood frame silences and thereby} dehumanizes the migrant through two mechanisms: collectivization and pacification (p. 616). Collectivization occurs when migrants are depicted as a statistical percentage, i.e., not as singular individuals, but as part of a larger mass of unfortunate people where one individual cannot be distinguished from another (Ibid.). They are thus portrayed within the media purely as a number rather than as actual human beings. Passivization refers to the instances where the migrant is depicted as a ‘’vulnerable body-in-pain’’ which lacks the basic resources needed for survival (Ibid.). Put differently, these individuals are passifized in the sense that they are portrayed as passive bodies, instead of political subjects, who are unable of altering the circumstances they are in by themselves and are thereby in need of external help (Ibid.). Both these narratives lead to the dehumanization of migrants as firstly, vulnerability is singled out as the defining property of the refugee which degrades them to ‘’sub-citizens’’, as they apparently cannot take care of themselves (Chouliaraki, Georgiou & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 9). Being considered a sub-citizen then deprives them of their ability to articulate a rational argument or personal will because they are no longer deemed to have the legitimacy, and thereby ability, to do so (Ibid.). Secondly, portraying them as a number or percentage, i.e., as part of a single unitary category, robs them of their individual histories as human beings (Chouliaraki & Zabrowski, 2017, p. 616). To sum up, the victimhood narrative leaves the migrant without a voice as either their political will is left unacknowledged or their biographical specificity is overlooked, which in the end results in them being placed outside the order of humanity (Chouliaraki & Ziobrowski, 2017, p. 617).

The evildoing frame silences the migrant through a contrastive mechanism. First of all, it differs from the victimhood narrative in the sense that the migrant body is seen as agentive rather than as submissive (Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2016, p. 617). Secondly, their chore characteristic is defined as one of malicious intent, which narrows down their agency to be one solely concerned with the capacity of hurting people (Ibid.). This narrative also leads to the dehumanization of refugees as there is an overemphasis on self-control of these individuals whereas in actuality, they do not have that much control over what happens in their life (Ibid.). Additionally, the attribution of malicious intent makes the migrant out to be a dangerous ‘’other’’ who threatens the well-being of our Western

way of life. Instead of a voiceless unfortunate who incites pity, migrants are turned into individuals who might be potential killers, which in its turn incites emotions of fear and leads to them being represented as having no place within our societies and thereby its discourses (Ibid.). In short, both the narratives of malevolence and victimhood result in the silencing of the migrant as they leave no room for them to have a voice within mainstream representational media. In line with Agamben (2000), silencing then leads to the dehumanization of the migrant individual as their capacity to participate in political or public debates, which is fundamental to human justice, is taken away (pp. 22, 33). This means that they are no longer able to become members of society and thereby there is a chance for others to treat them as ‘‘non-people’’ (Nikunen, 2019, p.155). In short, being silenced thus leads to them falling outside the order of humanity.

Following from the above findings, multiple authors acknowledge that there is a fundamental contradiction which exists within the European media landscape: there is an imbalance between the hyper visibility which the refugees and migrants enjoy within the media publications and their extremely limited capacity of having a voice within this same context (Rodriques & Gifford, 2010, p. 33; Horsti, 2016, p. 15; Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2016, p. 341; Chouliaraki & Stollic, 2017, p. 78). In other words, what is puzzling is the immense amount of media attention that the topic has gained throughout the last couple of years whilst the individuals which directly represent it, the migrants, remain largely silenced. This assumption is backed up by several empirical studies. Chouliaraki and Zaborowski (2017) for instance find that, within their 1,200 article dataset, which consists of newspapers from eight European countries - Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Serbia, and the United Kingdom - quotes from refugees or migrants were only found in about 16.6 percent of the full sample whereas quotes from politicians were present in 66 percent of the articles (p. 620). They concluded that overall, as the above posited trend was found to be consistent across all of the countries in their sample, migrant voices were a minority in comparison to those of politicians (Ibid.). As a result, independent of whether they were framed as threats or as victims, their voices were perpetually marginalized, or even fully silenced, within mainstream European news (Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 621). Chouliaraki, Georgiou and Zaborowski (2017) furthermore find that of all articles which described the migrants, only 24% distinguished between men and women, 16 percent included the names of the individuals, and only 7 percent included their professions (p. 19). This finding thus confirms the mechanism of collectivization as refugees are narrowly portrayed as an unskilled anonymous group within the majority of the publications (Chouliaraki, Georgiou & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 20). Chouliaraki and Zaborowski (2017) also draw the inference that European news regarding migrants was largely characterized by strategies of collectivization and thereby also dehumanization (p. 625).

Finally, Throbjørnsrud and Figenschou (2016), who analyzed the contents of American, French and Norwegian newspapers, find that statements from refugees were only present in 13% of their 1355 article sample, again reiterating that the majority of the publications talk about the subject of migration without actually talking to the people who represent the topic in question (p. 344). They furthermore confirm the dominance of the political elite as their presence is found in about 42% of the articles analyzed (Ibid.). All three groups of authors thus confirm that migrants are continuously silenced on a large scale within mainstream European media. Additionally, they find there to be a certain hierarchy of voice, or communicative order, within the media landscape which allocates a higher level of importance to the voices of the political elite. All in all, the fact that migrants are systematically silenced leads to them being characterized as non-political actors in that the contents of the newspapers primarily portray them as passive bodies incapable of participating in neither public nor political discourse (Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 622). To sum up, within mainstream media, the refugees have been effaced from journalistic publicity and thereby also the political sphere (Ibid.).

What becomes clear from the majority of the existing literature on migrant representation within the media is that it concludes that refugees are perpetually silenced and are thereby not allowed to enter the realm of neither public nor political discourse (Thorbj _​ø_​rnsrud & Figenschou, 2016, p. 344). The literature on voice and refugees highlights the dual narrow frames with which refugees are depicted and argues that these characterizations are problematic as they are the result of certain silencing, and thereby dehumanizing, mechanisms which leave the refugee without a published voice. What the body of research thus finds is that there is a certain hierarchical order, or communicative order, which deems some subject’s voices as worthier than others, i.e., those of the political elite, which results in them being able to define the rules of the game when it comes to the manner in which citizens should think, feel and act towards these newcomers _{​(Georgiou, 2018, p. 48). This} development is extremely important as even the European Commission (2011) acknowledges that these news narratives are key sources of public knowledge that heavily influence the manner in which the continent collectively perceives refugees and migrants. The media provides the public with the frames through which they try to make sense of the issues with which they are confronted. As such, the high level of silencing is a development that raises concern as it is precisely this media context that shapes the political views and opinions of the European public (Bellardi, _​Busch, Hassemeer, Peissl, & Scifo _​, 2018, p. 13). In sum, the body of research establishes that these narratives exist and that they perpetuate this certain hierarchy of representation or voice, thereby limiting the portrayal of migrants within mainstream media.

What seems to be overlooked in the body of research, however, is those digital media initiatives which provide an alternative space of representation and thereby do give a direct voice to

refugees and migrants (Georgiou, 2018, p. 56). These digital media platforms have rarely been analyzed by the literature on migrant representation within the media as they fall outside the hegemonic boundaries of social media versus mainstream media. It is, however, precisely these initiatives that resemble some of the sole organized efforts at countering the disbalance that is found within the European media (Georgiou, 2018, p. 46). Therefore, they should not be disregarded. There is thus a gap in the literature with regard to researching these digital initiatives which cannot be classified as either mainstream or social media, i.e., the grassroots and institutional digital platforms that do aim to narrate the individual migrant stories (Ibid.). Moreover, the structural and practical obstacles that complicate the media access of migrants and refugees have rarely been discussed within the above posited body of scholarship (Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2016, p. 350). As a result, not only are these alternative spaces of representation overlooked, but also the general obstacles towards entering these realms of representation have been insufficiently researched (Ibid.). Hence, there is a lack of research when it comes to the analysis of the digital media platforms and the manner in which they might represent or misrepresent the migrant subject. With the knowledge that refugees and migrants are perpetually silenced within the mass media, the logical next step would be to look for the representational spaces where they might actually have a voice, i.e., to have a look at the publications of alternative media outlets such as digital media platforms. Only minor steps, however, have been taken in this direction.

2.2 Migrant Representation within Digital Media Platforms

Following from the research gap, there are only a few authors who have analyzed migrant representation within alternative digital media platforms. Most of them, however, have not performed in-depth analyses of the publications but have mainly researched the potential they have for producing new spaces of migrant representation. Take for instance Bellardi et al., (2018), who argue that the digital media platforms can potentially create a space where migrants can directly challenge the dominant conceptions positied by mainstream media and they can thereby contribute towards a more inclusive, open to dialogue and representative media landscape (p. 10). These platforms afford migrants and refugees the opportunity to create their own images of self and their environment thereby potentially disrupting the dominant portrayal and often negative understanding of the public with regard to the migration issue (Bellardi et al., 2018, p. 11). Thorbj _​ø_​rnsrud and Figenschou (2016) also claim that they provide migrants with a representational space where they are allowed to speak about the dehumanizing effects of their irregular legal status thereby potentially creating a new image of themselves within the public’s eye (p. 348). By challenging the dominant media images of criminality, illegality, vulnerability and anonymity, refugees can potentially become the political agents they are supposed to be (Ibid.). Rodrigues and Gifford (2010) furthermore find that these types

of digital participatory media projects provide migrants with avenues where they can make the invisible visible, i.e., their stories (p. 39). Moreover, Moutafidou and Bratitsis (2018) contend that these types of digital storytelling initiatives can give a voice to those who are normally not heard (p. 221). Lastly, Nikunen (2019) also purports that the addition of these digital representational spaces can potentially expand both the discursive and visual modes of expressing politics thereby creating an alternative media space in which marginalized voices are able and allowed speak (p. 158). These digital initiatives can therefore increase the representation and visibility of many migrant individuals which breaks their silence and introduces counternarratives that go against the dominant negative representations of refugees published within the mainstream media (Nikunen, 2019, p. 167).

Nikunen (2019), however, also contends that these digital platforms do not solely host and facilitate these narratives but also intervene and thereby actively shape what is portrayed within their publications (p. 164). Georgiou (2018) agrees and also comes to the conclusion that within these digital spaces, there still is an order of appearance, or hierarchical order of voice, which means that not everyone is equally represented, even when these initiatives are built on the promise of being a platform for the already disadvantaged migrant voices (p. 49). The unanswered question which comes out of this relatively new section of the literary body is whether _{​‘’the digital personalization of the} subaltern is yet another expression of a Eurocentric imaginary, or even a familiar media format, to respond to liberal Europe’s fears toward the many newly arrived strangers.’’ _​(Georgiou, 2018, p. 55)_​.

Thus, There seems to be a chance that the voices of migrants are not fully or equally represented, and thereby silenced, even in these digital initiatives which claim that their main goal is to create spaces where the unheard can put forward their voice. It is therefore precisely these digital initiatives which are paramount to the research field as they can provide crucial insight into how these digital representational spaces, that go beyond the dominant outlets of social media and newspapers, also become contested spaces for recognition, visibility and voice. What the literature on mediatized migrant representation shows is that there is a gap in research with regard to the digital initiatives and that within the limited work which has been written on these novel digital representational spaces, there is still an important question to answer with regard to the supposed equality of representation within these initiatives. This thesis will therefore focus on comprehending the manner in which the visibility of refugees is regulated within these digital media spaces.

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework

The literature review indicates that during the migrant crisis, Europe’s media landscape was tested as an ethical communicative space as a result of the discriminatory difference in actors that were and were not allowed to have their voices heard. The main question following from the discussion of the literature concerns whether or not the voices of migrants and refugees have been allowed to effectively take part in public and thereby political discourse, in particular in the digital initiatives which were built on the promise of representing these marginalized individuals. Accordingly, the research question is raised: _{​Under what conditions have refugees been able to} successfully voice their histories, journeys and current concerns within digital Europe?

The concepts introduced in this theoretical section are put forward in order to create an understanding of the manner in which the voices of the subaltern are silenced, how they could be successfully heard and how this might alter the dehumanizing narratives which are currently reproduced by the majority of mainstream media publications (Nikunen, 2019; Thorbj _​ø_​rnsrud & Figenschou, 2016; Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017; Chouliaraki & Stolic, 2017). The theoretical argument that is put forward therefore posits that the digital media platforms provide alternative spaces of representation through which they expand the discursive modes of expressing politics thereby potentially introducing counternarratives and going against the dehumanizing narratives found within mainstream media (Thorbj_​ø_​rnsrud & Figenschou, 2016, p. 348). First of all, the potential underlying reasons _{​behind the dominant silencing efforts within the media will be explained in order} to provide an understanding of the larger context in which the silencing efforts of the mass media occur. Afterwards, the chapter will go into the spaces where they then might have the opportunity to counteract this disbalance, i.e., the digital media platforms. Subsequently, the factors which explain a successful break with silence and a successful break with the current dominant discourses, by means of these digital platforms, will be further explicated. Lastly, the expected differences between the publications of the institutional and grassroots initiatives will be made clear.

3.1 The Wider Context: The Underlying Power Relations Behind Silencing

The first question that is important to provide a theoretical background to is: why are the voices of the migrants silenced within mainstream European mass media? Spivak (1988) provides one of the most widely utilized interpretations when it comes to analyzing how the marginalized are silenced in her work _{​Can the Subaltern Speak?​}. She focuses on the manner in which the representations of the subaltern are dominated and shaped by those in power and emphasizes the importance of the discourses through which their power is translated (Nikunen, 2019, p. 162). Spivak’s (1988) postcolonial critique argues that colonial power is reproduced when the subaltern are not allowed to speak. Put differently, the aforementioned patterns of silencing have the goal of

reaffirming the colonial differences between the supposedly rational West that is civilized and the barbarian East from which people migrate that are either portrayed as dangerous or as helpless individuals who do not have the ability or right to speak (Georgiou, 2018, p. 47). Hence, Spivak would argue that there is a certain power structure which influences the manner in which refugees are portrayed within the media as the silencing patterns are underlined by the goal of keeping the differences between the civilized East and the barbarian West alive. In other words, there is a certain

hegemonic communicative order _​in place which strategically allocates more worth to the voices of some over others. The afore explicated mechanism of silencing should thereby be understood to resemble a tool which is used in order to sustain this goal of creating the image of the barbarian ‘’Other’’, i.e., the dehumanized image of the migrant.

Couldry (2010) refers to this underlying power structure as the economic and political forms of organization that uphold certain hierarchies of voice within the media (p. 2). Both Couldry and Spivak therefore acknowledge the colonial or hegemonic powers that are at play which then largely determine who is silenced and who is not. These hierarchies of voice are directly related to what Arendt (1988) has coined _{​the space of appearance​} , which refers to the selective public space that arises out of the speeches and actions of individuals that do have the power to enter the political sphere (Nikunen, 2019, p. 158). In these terms, Spivak argues that the hegemonic powers, which in the case of the migration issue refers to the hegemonic power which the EU as an entity resembles, have an interest in keeping the current space of appearance alive in which the subaltern, the migrants, are not given a place and thereby have access to neither public discourse nor the political sphere. The underlying reason is to ensure that the image of the rational West is upheld. Allowing the subaltern to voice their stories potentially threatens the integrity of the European continent as it could uncover the bad practices of the EU in dealing with the migrant crisis. As Thorbj _​ø_​rnsrud and Figenschou (2016) argue, the media could offer the possibility for migrants to speak up regarding the dehumanizing effects of their current treatment and characterization received from the EU (p. 348). Spivak’s postcolonial critique thus points towards an answer which argues that the migrants are perpetually silenced within European media as the image of the barbarian other is needed in order to justify Europe’s current inhumane immigration policies which it has implemented as a response towards the public’s fears of the newly arrived strangers (Georgiou, 2018, p. 55). The hegemonic communicative order is thus held in place in order to safeguard Europe’s image as a safehaven and helping hand with regard to the migration crisis.

Gajjala (2013) takes this discussion of power structures to the digital journalistic spaces of representation and argues that the influence of these hegemonic powers can also be found within the media published in the digital sphere (p. 16). Just as in offline media, these digital spaces are also battlefields where individuals attempt to make their voices heard. The concepts previously introduced

with regard to mainstream media, the _{​hegemonic communicative order that is kept in place through} Europe’s _{​space of appearance​} , are thus also applicable to the digital realm of journalism and are thereby also believed to heavily influence who gets to speak and who does not in these alternative online spaces of representation (Gajjala, 2013, p. 15). In their attempt to reproduce this particular knowledge, that of the rational West versus the barbarian East, these hegemonic powers silence the subaltern in order to keep this strategic space of appearance and hierarchy of voice alive (Georgiou, 2018, p. 47). In this sense, the mainstream media, but also the digital media, contribute to the reproduction of power relations and thereby ethnic inequalities by putting forward these narratives in which the migrant subject is portrayed as an ‘’other’’ not worthy of political discourse (Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2017, p. 340). Resistance to the narratives which these power structures produce would mean going against the current space of appearance thereby widening it to include voices that were previously not heard.

Theoretically speaking, there is thus a manner in which migrants can go against the dominant dehumanizing narratives by introducing their own counternarratives. This move is resembled by Fraser’s (1992) notion of _{​expanding the space of appearance within his work on subaltern} counterpublics (p. 67). These counterpublics, which groups of migrants within Europe could resemble, are explained by Fraser to have the ability of creating their own arenas where they can define their own needs, interests and identities (Ibid.). In the digital era, such arenas of publishing and debating are increasingly found in the digital institutional and grassroots media platforms (Nikunen, 2019, p. 158). There is thus the possibility of effectively working against the current space of appearance by expanding it to include other arena’s of mediatized representation which, if acknowledged, can alter the dominant hierarchy of voice by introducing voices that were previously left unheard. In this sense, the aforementioned economic and political forms of organization, or power structures, through which the EU attempts to uphold the image of the irrational barbarian other, can be effectively countered by introducing contrasting images and narratives of refugees which then might widen the public’s perceptions and thereby also alter their feelings and actions towards refugees and migrants. In line with Fraser’s theoretical argument, through the alternative spaces of representation which digital media platforms can provide, migrants and refugees could effectively go against the dominant negative portrayal of them within mainstream European media by putting forward their own counternarratives and thereby expanding the discursive modes of expressing politics. This thesis therefore aims to find out whether the six selected digital platforms actually resemble these types of spaces where migrants are able to momentarily disrupt the hegemonic communicative order by introducing their own discursive counternarratives.

3.2 Journalism as Performativity

If the migrants and refugees are potentially provided with the opportunity to break their silence through these digital platforms, how can these counter-narratives then effectively alter the public’s perceptions of migrants and refugees? First and foremost, journalism should be seen as a performative practice in the sense that its publications provide the public with _{​the symbolic conditions}

of possibility which they utilize in order to make sense of a specific topic that they are confronted with (Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 617). This implies that when for instance newspapers introduce stories of suffering regarding migrants, this is not simply an offering of factual information about these individuals, but the content within these publications actually set the conditions from which the majority of the public is enabled to imagine and thereby think, feel and act towards the subjects introduced within these writings (Ibid.). Hence, if the news solely introduces representations of refugees as either vulnerable sufferers or dangerous individuals, these two characterizations will set the parameters from which those who read the news will develop their individual opinions and feelings towards these refugees. What journalism therefore does with words, is that it characterizes migrants as particular kinds of individuals and thereby connects our relationship with them to certain affective and moral registers that regulate the manner in which we respond to this subject group (Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 618).

Journalism therefore determines, what Butler (2009) refers to as, _{​the fields of the perceptible,}

which refers to an individual’s available understandings of reality in which the notion of the recognizable human is maintained and shaped against what is then regarded as non-human (p. 64). Consequently, the dehumanizing frames which the media currently puts forward determine these fields of the perceptible and thereby also the negative manner in which we view or understand the subject group of migrants, how we morally relate to them, and thereby how we articulate our political stances towards them (Ibid.). Simply put, journalism heavily shapes the way in which we make sense of the world that lies beyond our own continent and therefore also influences how we engage with the individuals that migrate from it (Ibid.). Just as journalism is deemed performative, digital journalism should be perceived as performative as well. Digital media has provided an alternative way of representing political narratives which departs from the traditional manner in which institutional politics is practiced (Nikunen, 2019, p. 157). As a result, participation within this alternative digital space can also influence the manner in which the public perceives those who live in or migrate from areas beyond the European continent (Ibid.). By introducing counternarratives, these digital media outlets can thus potentially alter the public’s negative outlook on migrants and refugees by altering their fields of the perceptible from which the public can make up their emotional and political response towards refugees and migrants anew.

3.3 Couldry’s Politics of Voice

Theoretically speaking, the digital media platforms could provide a space for migrants and refugees to break their silence by introducing counternarratives. The sole production of these counternarratives on its own will however not alter the manner in which the public perceives the migrant individuals. So in what manner then do these digital media spaces relate to the migrant’s voice and how might these voices then be successfully heard? In other words, under what conditions will these counternarratives be successful? First of all, central to the performative conceptualization of journalism is a process of _{​recognition (Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 618). The process of} recognition refers to the manner in which stories within the news attribute agency to those who suffer through what Couldry (2010) refers to as, _{​a politics of voice​} : who is allowed to speak, in which capacity, and in what context (p. 2). Individuals are thereby recognized by being allocated agency in the sense that they are enabled to speak up for themselves within the representational space of the media. This ability of speaking in the environment created and sustained by the media is therefore what allows one’s story telling to become significant. Couldry (2010) conceptualizes this occurrence of significance as _{​voice as value which means that journalism, i.e., having your voice published, is} central to this process of recognition (p. 9). This is the case because journalism, and the performative force of its news stories, regulate the manner in which the voice of refugees is given a place in our discourses and thereby also controls how and whether it is given recognition, i.e., given value (Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017, p. 618). A voice having value, however, also means that the ones who utters it is treated as a reflexive human agent by the individuals who allow him or her to publish their story. A voice is thus truly acknowledged and thereby valued when those who publish it deem the writer an agentive and reflexive human agent who is capable of formulating his or her own political will. To sum up, having one’s voice displayed within the media, can bring the formerly unknown into the realm of the acknowledged (Horsti, 2016, p. 5).

Accordingly, Couldry (2010) relates the concept of voice to the capacity of being able to give a narrative account of yourself and your place in the world (p. 7). This is what he refers to as _{​voice as} a process (Ibid.). Being able to utter your voice, however, is for Couldry (2010) not enough. As mentioned above, it needs to matter, i.e., it needs to be valued and thereby acknowledged within public discourse (p. 1). Couldry (2010) thus conceptualizes voice as having two levels, that of being a process, and that off having value. The second level determines whether or not the voice is successful, whether it is recognized by another individual who deems you a reflexive human agent. A voice is not valued, when certain economic or political forms of organization undermine or deny it (Couldry, 2010, p. 9). Think for example of the manner in which the European media has limited the ability of migrants to speak about their experiences. When this is the case, valuing the voice of the subaltern then means discriminating against these broader frameworks of organization in order to be able to

recognize the value of the previously unacknowledged voices. This mechanism of discriminating against the more dominant frameworks in which migrants do not get a voice, is exactly what the aforementioned digital initiatives aim to do; they aim to provide a space where these voices do get heard. This dual view on voice as a process and value allows the analysis to identify the conditions under which a voice is successfully heard, i.e., when it has been uttered in a space where it is recognized, and furthermore allows it to distinguish between the representational spaces that either silence or acknowledge, or either do or do not value, the voice of the subaltern. In order for the counternarratives to be successful, they do not only have to be published, they also need to be valued. To sum up, the theoretical argument, which this thesis attempts to analyze with regard to the digital media platforms, first argues that there is a certain hegemonic power in place, represented by the EU, which through its discourse has attempted to keep up the image of the ‘’barbarian other’’ partially by means of perpetually silencing the subject group of migrants and refugees within the mainstream media. They are thereby also excluded from the political sphere, or the public’s _{​space of} appearance, _​as their voices are not provided with a space where they can be sufficiently articulated. Fraser’s concept of _{​expanding the space of appearance is then introduced in order to explain the} manner in which migrants might go against the dominant silencing efforts found within the media by including their own counternarratives through the digital media platforms. Digital Journalism is thereby understood as _{​performative in the sense that it can effectively shape the manner in which the} public feels and acts towards a certain topic. Counternarratives can thus produce a change in the manner in which the public understands and acts towards the issue of migration. Butler explains this possibility in the sense that the public’s fields of the perceptible can be altered through the discursive moments that counter the dominant negative understanding of the migration issue. Lastly, Couldry adds to the mix that in order for the counternarratives to be truly successful, they need to be _​valued​, i.e., recognized and not solely published. Only then might a refugee or migrant individual successfully make use of the digital platforms which aim to give them a voice and thereby potentially go against the misconceptions currently reproduced by the majority of mainstream European media. The first theoretical assumption, or question, which the analysis of this thesis aims to answer is thus whether the digital media platforms actually provide spaces where migrants might actually do what is deemed theoretically possible, i.e., having their voice heard and valued and thereby potentially producing a change in the manner in which the public perceives the migration issue. The second theoretical assumption, or question, that this thesis explores is whether the organizational structure of the platforms, that of grassroots versus institutional, has an influence on the manner in which the migrants and refugees are represented within these initiatives. The final section of this theoretical chapter will introduce the reasons as to why one might expect there to be a difference between the representational efforts of the grassroots versus the institutional initiatives.

3.4 Grassroots vs. Institutional Digital Media Projects

There is quite a big difference between the institutional versus the grassroots initiatives which is that they depart from different points of origin. An institutional initiative will have to uphold a certain exterior goal or aim which means that the choice of creating an online platform is always the result of several calculated formal decisions which have the institution’s interests at heart. Accordingly, there will always be a central form of organization that controls the exchange of information in order to safeguard these interests (Bowman & Willis, 2003, p. 9). As a result, there is a certain exterior agenda to be promoted and the institutional initiatives should therefore show a higher level of control when it comes to what is and what is not published (Ibid.). Put differently, the manner in which institutional initiatives will represent these refugees will be determined by whatever institutional aim underlines its representational efforts (Georgiou, 2018, p. 49). Consequently, certain representations, or narratives, will be seen as most effective in attaining whatever goal the institution pursues. The digital media platform itself should thereby be regarded as a means to a certain end as it is created with the exterior purpose of the institution in mind. Grassroots initiatives, on the other hand, are a political outcome in their own right in the sense that the creation of the platform itself is the end goal. The establishment of the platform occurs in a bottom up manner which means that there is no underlying motive behind the publishing of migrant stories as representing them is the sole motivation for having initiated the platform. A bottom up way of creating such an initiative therefore is not attached to the aforementioned exterior goals or aims which an institutionally lead media project has to live up to (Bowman & Willis, 2003, p. 9). Grassroots platforms are therefore not just a means to a certain end, but the representations and thereby the platform in itself is the end goal. Consequently, they should portray a lower level of editorial oversight and filtering (Ibid.).

In short, what one has to keep in mind with regard to the institutional initiatives, is that there are often underlying motives as the institution, and its goals, already existed before the digital platform was created. The inclusion of both institutional and grassroots digital media platforms within the analysis is therefore a strategic decision as, following from the above posited differences, counterposing them should allow for the discovery of meaningful patterns in the representational practices of both types of media outlets. The institutional initiatives could for instance be more prone to portray certain narratives only and thereby silence others as they have particular exterior goals to uphold. Accordingly, the second theoretical assumption which the analysis will explore, or question which the analysis will answer, is whether the organizational backgrounds of the digital media projects have an influence on the manner in which they represent or misrepresent migrants and refugees.

Chapter 4: Methodology

As follows from the literature review and theoretical framework, the main aim of this thesis is to create an understanding of the manner in which the voice, and thereby visibility, of refugees is regulated within the digital media spaces of Europe. For the purpose of producing this understanding, this paper will attempt to assess to what extent a carefully selected sample of the above-mentioned digital initiatives have provided refugees with the ability to effectively voice their histories, journeys and current experiences. In order to do so, this paper will utilize a case study design analyzing six cases of online migrant representation, i.e. a number of personal stories from six different digital, institutional or grassroots, initiatives that aim to give an online voice to refugees and migrants. In what follows, the reasoning behind the selection of the chosen initiatives, the method for analyzing whether or not they have successfully created a representational space for the marginalized migrants, and the potential pitfalls of the method utilized will be introduced and explained.

4.1 Data Collection

The analysis put forward in this thesis will analyze six different initiatives which aim to give refugees and migrants a digital platform to speak to/with Europe in response to the negative mediatized context created by the migration crisis. These initiatives can be classified as digital media platforms as they occupy a space which is neither mainstream nor social media. It is, however, precisely this representational space which is paramount to analyze as it constitutes a public arena where refugees and migrants do not only speak but are also occasionally heard. As a result, these initiatives should be considered to be crucial nodes within the digital communicative structures of Europe as they resemble some of the sole representational spaces that can potentially introduce counternarratives that go against the negative portrayal of migrants and refugees within mainstream European media. Consequently, the focus is put precisely on the analysis of these institutional and grassroots media projects as they introduce stories narrated by the subjects themselves which implies that they, unlike content generated by users, attempt to actively alter representational politics, and thereby public opinion, through their organized efforts for migrant representation. As will be further explained in the remainder of this section, the chosen initiatives were selected in a strategic manner in order for the analysis to have a symbolically significant but nonexhaustive and thereby manageable and comparable sample of migrant stories.

Half of the digital media projects were established by institutions, whereas the other half are organized at the grassroots level. The grassroots initiatives are the Migrant Voice organization, the Migrant Tales blog community and the Mediafugees online media platform. The institutional initiatives are the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) online stories archive, the online platform initiated by the UN Migration Agency called ‘’I am a migrant’’ and the Aware

Migrant project which was created by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Italian ministry of interior. All six initiatives have the primary objective of putting migrant and refugee voices at the center of representation and thereby go against the dominant image of the refugee as the silent other.

Despite their organizational differences, that of institutional vs. grassroots, the above mentioned initiatives were selected using three criteria, i.e., they were chosen on the basis of portraying three common characteristics making them suitable for comparison: (1) they all represent practices which claim, or aim, to represent some of Europe’s core values: integration, respect of human rights and most of all equality, (2) they reflect instances of ‘’best practices’’ in which migrants and refugees are deliberately represented and thereby potentially listened to, and (3) these initiatives have gained wider attraction among scholars/journalists which indicates that their stories are not solely published but are also read and talked about and thereby possibly introduced to audiences other than those who already now of the platforms (Musaro, 2016; Carling, 2016; Carretero, 2018; Nikunen 2018; Richoufftz, 2018). Due to time restrictions, the above introduced digital platforms were carefully selected from a range of digital initiatives that attempt to provide migrants with the ability to let their voices be heard, which means that many other initiatives could also be researched using the same method. Furthermore, the data included in thesis is publicly available as the migrant stories are published on open websites. Lastly, the time span in which these stories will be published will range from the start of the migration crisis until now, as it is within this period that the paradox between the hypervisibility of the migrant issue and the lack of their voices has developed. Analyzing stories published within this time frame should thus allow me to find a broad range of attempts aimed at countering this unfair representational disbalance. Moreover, analyzing and comparing the two different types of initiatives should allow for some interesting insights as their organizational differences could lead to differences in the manner in which they represent the migrant subject.

In order to operationalize whether or not migrant voices have actually been valued within these initiatives and whether there are significant differences between the two types of media platforms, the analysis is driven by several interrelated sub-questions which support the main research question: (1) who and what is represented within these digital media spaces? (2) which voices predominante and which voices are underrepresented within the online publications? and (3) if applicable, what kind of silencing mechanisms are present, i.e., who is allowed to speak and is listened to versus who is not? These questions are aimed at evaluating the meaning and value allocated to refugee voices within this media landscape, and are also directed towards finding the differences between the representational efforts of institutional and grassroots initiatives. Getting the answers to the questions out of the stories published within these digital initiatives will be achieved through a Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis. Ultimately, finding answers to the sub-questions

should also allow the analysis to produce the findings that will help answer the overall research question. An overview of the initiatives and the amount of stories analyzed can be found in table 1.

Table 1: List of the selected digital media platforms

Name Type Format Nr. of stories URL Aware Migrant Institutional Video testimonies 10 https://awaremigrants.org/

I am a migrant Institutional Written testimonies 10 https://iamamigrant.org

UNHCR's stories archive

Institutional Written testimonies 10 https://www.unhcr.org/stories. html

Mediafugees Grassroots Written testimonies 5 https://mediafugees.com

Migrant Voice Grassroots Written testimonies 10 http://migrantvoice.org

Migrant Tales Grassroots Written testimonies 10 http://Migranttales.net

4.2 Method

As mentioned above, the applied methodology will be that of Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA). First of all, this method is especially relevant as it is based on particular constructivist underpinnings which argue that language is used by individuals to promote their understandings of the world and naturalise them, i.e., make their views appear to be common sensicial or natural (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 2). Accordingly, through the medium of language, certain kinds of values, practices, ideas and identities are naturalized and promoted. Institutions such as media outlets then represent arenas where such knowledge is regulated and disseminated (Ibid.). Discourse, in this sense, is a form of social practice that does not only reflect the social world but also actively constitutes it, i.e., meaning, or the manner in which we understand the world, is socially constructed through the use of language. These constructivist underpinnings are relevant as they are strongly related to the performative understanding of journalism, introduced in the theoretical framework, which also contends that the way in which we make sense of the world, is partially shaped by what we gather from certain discourses published in the mass media. Additionally, MCDA aims to uncover ‘’orders of discourses’’ which refers to the order of a multiplicity of discourses that cover a certain topic and compete with each other in order to create the dominant meaning or understanding of this certain issue. MCDA is thus able of identifying the certain hierarchies of voice, a concept introduced in the theoretical framework, as it recognizes that digital spaces are battlefields where individuals

attempt to make their voices, i.e., their meaning making attempts, heard. Moreover, the methodology of MCDA is particularly applicable as it reflects the theoretical expectation that meaning, the manner in which refugees are viewed, is socially constructed through institutions such as media outlets and that these arenas of publicity symbolize fields of struggle where different actors attempt to make their understanding of a certain topic the dominant one, i.e., attempt to naturalize it.

What makes MCDA furthermore relevant, is that it aims to uncover the discursive practices which contribute towards the reproduction and creation of unequal power relations between certain social groups (Krotofil & Motak, 2018, p. 95). The reproduction of these power relations can be understood as the ideological effects of a discourse. A method of Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis is thus chosen specifically as it aims to uncover the discursive practises that legitimize and reproduce certain social injustices, such as the hierarchies of voice within which certain ethnic groups are silenced (Ibid.). MCDA is therefore particularly appropriate because it is able to identify the invisible practices within texts by going deeper than just analyzing its explicit argumentations thereby diving into the realm of linguistic practices and potentially revealing certain ideological and political bases which underline the meanings produced within a certain discourse (Ibid.). Put differently, the method of MCDA is chosen as it allows me to potentially reveal what is hidden behind the language patterns of a series of texts allowing me to identify whether or not certain dominant ideologies, or power structures, are reproduced through the discourses within them (Van Dijk, 2005, p. 18). These dominant power structures are then of course related to the propagation of certain social structures which benefit some but disadvantage others.

Hence, the methodology is especially relevant as it offers an understanding of power structures and their effects on meaning making that are similar to Spivak’s concept of power introduced in the theoretical framework which also argues that there are certain powers which strongly determine what meanings are allowed to be constructed within certain discourses, i.e., who is allowed to speak and create meaning and who is not. The theoretical framework and MCDA therefore both assume that power relations can be transmitted and enacted through discourse (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 4). Accordingly, MCDA should allow me to study in what manner power relations are negotiated and exercised through discursive attempts. It should thereby also enable me to uncover the discursive practises, such as silencing, that keep alive a certain order of appearance, permitting me to further operationalize the concepts related to power introduced in the theoretical framework. Additionally, the multimodal aspect of MCDA is introduced in order to acknowledge that meaning is not solely generated through language, but also through other semiotic modes (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 6). These modes, among which graphics, photographs, images and diagrams, are explicitly included by the author and therefore also work to create meaning and thus deem to be analyzed as well (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 9). In short, both language, as well as visual communication can shape the

way in which we understand social reality. With the recent introduction of online media platforms, these types of different modes put together have become increasingly relevant as they are more commonly utilized within the digital media landscape. Put differently, forms of multimodal representation have become much more available in everyday life with the rise of online media platforms (Jones, 2013, p. 1). The multimodal perspective is thus especially applicable as it allows me to analyze text in combination with other representational modes.

4.3 Method Application

The manner in which MCDA is applied to the selected texts in order to operationalize the concepts introduced in the theoretical framework is informed by Fairclough’s three dimensional model of Critical Discourse Analysis. As explained above, MCDA views discourse as a circular process in which texts influence society, by forming the viewpoints of the public who reads them, and society influences texts, by shaping the mode and context in which they are created (Richardson, 2007, p. 37). Theoretically this means that, on the one hand, the stories published on the digital media platforms are the product of certain individuals working within certain social circumstances and, on the other hand, the contents of these stories can have social effects by shaping the viewpoints of those who read them. These assumptions will be researched through the discourse analysis of the selected texts by means of Fairclough's three different dimensions of critical discourse analysis. The first dimension is called _{​discourse as text ​}which refers to the organisation and linguistic features of a certain discourse (Blommaert, 2005, p. 29). Within this first dimension attention is paid to the systematic analysis of the text structure and the patterns and choices in vocabulary and subject such as metaphors, grammar and cohesion (Ibid.). Within this analysis one must assume that every aspect of the text’s content is the result of a ‘’choice’’ made by the writer; for instance a choice to describe an individual in one way over another or the choice to include a certain opinion over another (Richardson, 2007, p. 38). The text is thus analysed in terms of what is presented versus what is not, or what could have been present (Ibid.). The analysis will therefore not only look at which discursive patterns are present within the texts, but will also look at what is specifically not articulated within them and whether this might be a strategic choice serving a certain ulterior purpose. The aforementioned chosen elements of vocabulary, semantic and grammar should therefore be regarded as having a particular function in the moment of their use, such as portraying a certain individual in a particular manner (Ibid.). The textual level of analysis should furthermore be analyzed in relation to its (in)direct participation in countering or reproducing a certain ideology, or power structure, which is what the two other dimensions of analysis aim to cover (Richardson, 2007, p. 39).

The second level of analysis is the _{​discourse as discursive practice ​}dimension which analyzes discourse in the sense that it is created, consumed, distributed and circulated within a certain societal