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.
Talking About Poverty: Narratives, Counter-Narratives, and Telling Effective Stories
This report synthesizes the complex body of research around existing poverty narratives and counter-narratives, with practical advice about how to use narratives to create better stories—and,...
How Are Advocates Talking about Children’s Issues? An Analysis of Field Communications
This is one of a set of three reports that map the landscape of current discourse and thinking.