This Field Frame Analysis maps the competing narratives used by influential organizations to frame the debate on immigration and immigration reform. It finds that narratives that support restrictive immigration policies are more coherent and complete — and therefore more likely to “stick” in the public’s mind — than those that support comprehensive immigration reform. The report concludes with recommendations as to how organizations working towards comprehensive reform can communicate more effectively.
Getting to “We”: Mapping the Gaps Between Expert and Public Understandings of Immigration and Immigration Reform
This report lays the groundwork for a larger effort to reframe the public debate on immigration and immigration reform.
Culture Change Roundtable: Are Americans Thinking More Systemically?
Join us Tuesday, July 12, from 1:00–2:00 p.m. ET for a conversation with progressive leaders about the implications of shifting mindsets and their impacts on health equity, the economy, race,...
Framing and change: Using Communications as a Tool for Social Change
Framing can be used to more effectively advance ideas and open the public discourse to new solutions. Social science research is at the core of effective framing--the question of how best to frame...