The Glossary includes key terms from discourses on migration, integration, narrative, and media representation that will be used frequently in Opprtunities. In addition to these thematic areas, the glossary provides relevant terminology from corpus linguistics, quantitaive media studies, and narrative theory. This wide semantic field gives shape to our two core concepts, the Cross Talk and the Level telling Field.

With this glossary we launch a fruitful dialogue we seek to initiate on different levels, on political, societal and scientific level.

This report examines the evolution in attitudes towards migrants and migration in Europe. Concretely, the report investigates and discusses the changes in the perception of migrants and attitudes towards migration between 2002-2018 using the European Social Survey data. Both the evolution of migration perceptions within countries and the cross-national evolution across European countries are discussed and illustrated visually. The analyses indicate that most Europeans are either ambivalent or relatively positive about migration. Further, important between-country differences are present in Europe. Central and Eastern European countries are especially negative about migration, and they have also grown more negative in the wake of the 2015-2016 refugee crisis. Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon countries, in contrast, hold more positive views. In fact, in most European countries, citizens have become more supportive of tolerant immigration policies over the examined period, though few are supportive of an open border policy. Finally, certain categories of citizens in the sample tend to exhibit lower levels of support for migration. Citizens with lower levels of income and education, (radical) right-leaning political attitudes, low levels of trust, and the elderly, are on average more negative about migrants and open border policies.

Narratives influence the public perception of migration and attitudes towards migrants and refugees, often with unintended and unanticipated consequences. In order to further our understanding of the construction, emergence of, and interaction between different kinds of narratives, this paper proposes a programmatic concept of narrative dynamics. Narrative dynamics research is equally interested in the pragmatics of narrative framing and the grand narratives of human rights, in fake news, propaganda and
disinformation, in mundane stories of everyday experience and the intangible myths and masterplots which shape organizations, institutions, and cultures. The paper concentrates on wide-spread phenomena, revealing key features of narratives: event modeling and event management, purpose and chaff, aggregation and normalization, as well as (re)alignment and redirection. In addition to this, the paper focuses on scenarios involving multiple and competing narratives, and it introduces a distinction between centrifugal and
centripetal effects. Three examples – German welcome culture in 2015, Matteo Salvini’s confrontation with Sea Watch in 2019, and online hate speech against a Red Cross volunteer in Ceuta in 2021 – demonstrate how these concepts help us to analyse political framings of migration and responses to representations of migration.

The debate between the political left and the political right has increasingly become a debate on the benefits and drawbacks of immigration. In this report we analyze the lexical choices to be found in the Twitter discourse of politicians from four adjacent countries: Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Italy.
Seven Twitter accounts were scrutinised to compare the views of traditional parties (socialist, liberal, and conservative) with those of the “new” far-right, anti-immigration parties. We considered a large sample period going from January 1 st, 2015 to May 1st , 2021 (7,294,569 words). A corpus-based linguistic analysis showed that the concept of “borders” is central to the discourse of the right and far right, while left-wing/centrist politicians favour “integration”. Nevertheless, both far-right and traditional parties use discursive “safety valves” to stave off attacks from the other side. Right-wing/far-right politicians strive to avoid accusations of racism, while left-wing/centrist politicians fear being represented as blindly believing in the benefits of immigration. Regardless of political affiliation, opposition politicians in need of attention also tend to take an antagonistic stance in their communication.

The debate between the political left and the political right has increasingly become a debate on the benefits and drawbacks of immigration. In this report we analyze the lexical choices to be found in the Twitter discourse of politicians from four adjacent countries: Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Italy.
Seven Twitter accounts were scrutinised to compare the views of traditional parties (socialist, liberal, and conservative) with those of the “new” far-right, anti-immigration parties. We considered a large sample period going from January 1 st, 2015 to May 1st , 2021 (7,294,569 words). A corpus-based linguistic analysis showed that the concept of “borders” is central to the discourse of the right and far right, while left-wing/centrist politicians favour “integration”. Nevertheless, both far-right and traditional parties use discursive “safety valves” to stave off attacks from the other side. Right-wing/far-right politicians strive to avoid accusations of racism, while left-wing/centrist politicians fear being represented as blindly believing in the benefits of immigration. Regardless of political affiliation, opposition politicians in need of attention also tend to take an antagonistic stance in their communication.

Life stories play a crucial role in migration discourses: they serve as testimony in journalistic work, form the core of ambassadorial storytelling by NGOs, and inspire collaborative projects initiated by writers seeking to express their solidarity. However, this article argues, drawing on migrants’ experiences for such purposes also creates an ethical dilemma: speaking about – or even for – rather than with migrants assigns them a passive role and tends to recycle existing narrative patterns and templates. Starting with a generic distinction between what we call stories of migration (various forms of self-expression granting migrants full authority and control over their narrative) and narratives on migration (external perspectives, e.g. academic, economic, political, and legal approaches, where lived experience doesn’t matter), we explore the extensive middle ground of hybrid forms between these two extremes – i.e. different kinds of vicarious storytelling – before discussing their ethical implications. We further show how the idea of the level playing field, a key concept in economics, can be used in transdisciplinary research projects to establish level telling fields, i.e. communicative spaces characterized by a fair dialogue on an equal footing for all participants.

In a growingly diverse Europe, understanding what European citizens think about migrants and refugees becomes increasingly relevant. This report seeks to contribute to a better understanding of migration preferences, by examining the changing attitudes of citizens towards immigrants and migration policies in Europe. The aim of the report is two-fold. First, it seeks to understand how attitudes have changed in the last two decades in Europe (2002- 2018), and what might be driving these changes. Second, the report uncovers individual and country level typologies of migration preferences. Part one of the quantitative analyses builds on group conflict, and contact theory. Group conflict theory argues that intergroup competition influences attitudes towards the representatives of an outgroup, such as ethnic minorities or immigrants. These perceptions are not only influenced by the structural position of the individual (e.g., socio-economic status), but also by contextual factors, such as changes in a country’s economic situation or an influx of migrants. In contrast, contact theory suggests that more diversity can lead to more support for migration through increased intergroup contact between the host nation and immigrants. Building on these theories and using all nine rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS), the analyses delineate the change in attitudes towards immigrants and migration before, during, and after the refugee crisis of 2015-2016, covering the period between 2002 and 2018. The report examines relevant explanatory factors at the individual (e.g., social class) and contextual level (e.g., % of foreign-born population). Mixed evidence is found for the notion that countries that receive more immigrants, or those that experience an economic downturn, are less supportive of migration. Cleavages between citizens in terms of political attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics, on the other hand, appear to be important drivers of migration preferences. The analyses can thus only partially confirm group conflict or contact theory. There are also some indications that migration attitudes in most European countries have become more positive in the last two decades. Part two of the analyses investigates the multidimensionality of attitudes towards migration in the European population, through creating a typology of different perspectives on migration. Analyses are based on the European Social Survey’s 2002 module, which focuses on attitudes towards migration and asylum policy, and on the 2016 module, which was fielded after the 2015-2016 refugee crisis. These analyses provide evidence for three distinct individual level profiles. Most European citizens can be classified as having either out spokenly open, or restrictive attitudes about migration, and do not distinguish between the type of immigrant, or the aspects of migration citizens find the most threatening. A sizeable group of citizens, moreover, is selective about migration. They are supportive of migration in general, but also fear the impact Page | 8 of immigrants on their society. Hence, most European citizens remain luke warm about migration, and this pattern is also reflected at the country level.

The Cross Talk methodology aims at creating a Level Telling Field and establishing the conditions for
a “fair dialogue” between migrants and persons or institutions who can have an impact on the lives of
the migrants. It seeks to answer the question of how a society can be inclusive. The key question of the
Cross Talks is developed from a European perspective.
In an African context this key question is only one out of many questions. Moreover, there are other
questions that are more urgent. These manifold questions come from a wide and diverse group of
migrants: internal migrants, emigrants, transmigrants, regular and irregular migrants, returning (forced
or voluntary) migrants. The various groups have their own aspirations and try to live a life that they
have reasons to appreciate.
In an African context super-diversity is the main characteristic. The Cross Talk methodology must
therefore be adjusted to answer this super-diversity. This includes a broadening and a multiplication of
the dialogue sessions, the use of more and more different methods, and the involvement of the wider
community.
In the African context the Cross Talks want to mobilise the entire society to realise real change for the
African people and all the persons with aspirations to migrate.