BIRMM Spotlight Interview: Migration and migrant representation through language in media and policy discourse with Dr. Valériane Mistaen
In this BIRMM Spotlight interview, we speak with Dr. Valériane Mistiaen, postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Communication Studies at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). Her work explores how language, grammar, and discourse shape the ways migration and migrants are represented in media, policy, and public debate.
Thank you for joining us, Dr. Mistiaen. Could you start by introducing yourself and your research background?
Thank you for the invitation. I completed a joint PhD between ULB and VUB in 2023, focusing on how people on the move are named and described in French- and Dutch-language media discourse. My interest in migration discourse actually began before academia, when I worked as a communication officer for a non-profit organization supporting migrants. At the time, I found myself questioning which words we should use to describe the people we worked with, and that question never left me. It eventually became the foundation of my doctoral research and later my postdoctoral project, which is funded by the FWO.
Could you tell us more about your PhD project and its main findings?
My PhD examined more than 13,000 newspaper articles and 3,400 television news items from leading French- and Dutch-speaking Belgian media outlets, covering the period of the so-called “refugee crisis” between 2015 and 2017. Using corpus linguistics and discourse analysis, I studied how people on the move were denominated and designated in media coverage.
One striking finding was the sheer lexical creativity in migration discourse: I identified more than 300 different terms and expressions used to describe migrants and refugees. These ranged from highly temporary or situational labels to more permanent and politically charged ones. While journalists often clearly attributed controversial terms to politicians, using quotation marks or reported speech, those terms nonetheless circulated and gradually entered public discourse.
Another key finding was that these denominations function as a form of classification. Certain terms implicitly distinguish between those perceived as “deserving” protection and those who are not, such as the contrast between political refugees and so-called economic migrants. Importantly, studying all these terms together, rather than focusing only on the most common ones, revealed how meanings shift depending on context, proximity to other terms, and broader discursive environments.
Finally, the research showed that migration discourse contributes to different forms of social memory in Belgium. French- and Dutch-speaking media do not always describe the same events using the same language, which highlights how journalistic routines and linguistic choices shape social reality. The results of this work are published in an open-access book titled Did You Say Migrant? Media Representations of People on the Move.
Your current postdoctoral research focuses on grammar and ideology in migration discourse. Could you explain this in accessible terms?
In my postdoctoral project, I examine how grammatical morphology, particularly prefixes like re, carries ideological meaning in state-induced migration discourse. Terms such as return, readmission, reintegration, resettlement, or repatriation are frequently used by the EU, UNHCR, and IOM. At first glance, these words appear neutral, technical, or even positive. But they often function to soften or obscure more coercive realities, such as deportation.
What interests me is whether this language merely circulates at the policy level or whether it also enters the discourse of NGOs and everyday actors. I’m currently studying this across multiple contexts, including EU institutions, international organizations, local NGOs in the Canary Islands, Belgium, and the UK. My aim is to understand how these terms travel, how their meanings shift, and how they are interpreted by different actors.
What have you found so far in European-level discourse?
One important observation is that EU migration discourse often says more about Europe itself than about migration. Europe presents itself simultaneously as a defender of human rights and democracy, while justifying strict migration control. This tension is managed through what I describe as a migration management discourse, which frames migration as a technical problem requiring neutral, administrative solutions.
I also observed two notable shifts. First, since the late 1990s, the term migration has increasingly replaced immigration, a more vague term that may help evacuate negative connotations. Second, concepts such as solidarity and cooperation, which are traditionally voluntary, are increasingly framed as compulsory obligations within EU policy texts. These shifts reveal how language is used to normalize certain political positions.
More broadly, how do you reflect on the words used by politicians and the media to describe migrants and refugees?
Journalists, at least in Belgium, often demonstrate awareness by attributing controversial terms to political sources. However, once these terms circulate, they can still enter everyday language. Over time, meanings shift: terms that were once neutral become negatively connotated and are replaced by new ones, guest worker, immigrant, migrant, in a continuous cycle.
A particularly telling example is the difference in media coverage between the arrival of Syrians in 2015 and Ukrainians in 2022. In the latter case, there was an immediate and widespread consensus to describe them as refugees, illustrating how political context and social perceptions shape language choices.
What role do you think research plays in this field?
I believe researchers have a strong responsibility to share their findings beyond academia. Words do not merely describe reality, they actively construct it. By engaging with journalists, policymakers, NGOs, and the public, research can help uncover the hidden patterns in discourse and encourage more reflective and responsible language use.
Finally, looking ahead, what is your vision for how migrants and refugees should be represented in public discourse?
I hope migration discourse becomes more attentive to the diversity of individual experiences and more open to self-reflection. Mistakes in language are inevitable, but what matters is the willingness to acknowledge them and explain them. I also hope we continue to amplify voices that are too often absent from media and policy debates, people with lived experience of migration, as well as NGOs, activists, and researchers. Migration is complex, and our language should reflect that complexity.
Thank you, Dr. Mistiaen, for sharing your insights.
Thank you, it was a pleasure!
Watch the full interview with Dr. Valériane Mistiaen here: