Social justice is a framework that has been at the forefront of technical communication in recent years. While social justice is often applied in participatory studies, it can also feature in studies using quantitative methods. In this study, I use corpus-based critical discourse analysis to investigate the portrayal of migrants in the World Migration Reports, the flagship publication of the International Organization for Migration. I emphasize context to bring in the social justice framework in this analysis. This study finds that the World Migration Reports represent migrants within various topoi, with a particular focus on the topos of advantage and that of danger/threat.
AcharyaK. (2019).
Usability for social justice: Exploring the implementation of localization usability in Global North technology in the context of a Global South’s country. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
49(1), 6–32.
2.
AgbokaG. (2012).
Liberating intercultural technical communication from “large culture” ideologies: Constructing culture discursively. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
42(2), 159–181.
3.
AgbokaG. Y. (2013).
Participatory localization: A social justice approach to navigating unenfranchised/disenfranchised cultural sites. Technical Communication Quarterly,
22(1), 28–49.
4.
AgbokaG. Y. (2014).
Decolonial methodologies: Social justice perspectives in intercultural technical communication research. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
44(3), 297–327.
5.
BakerP. (2012).
Acceptable bias? Using corpus linguistics methods with critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies,
9(3), 247–256.
6.
BakerP.McEneryT. (2005).
A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics,
4(2), 197–226.
7.
Bloom-PojarR. (2018). Translingual rhetorical engagement in transcultural health spaces. In L. B. Meloncon & J. Scott (Eds.), Methodologies for the rhetoric of health & medicine (pp. 214–234). Taylor and Francis.
8.
BorkertM.FisherK.YafiE. (2018).
The Best, the worst, and the hardest to find: How people, mobiles, and social media connect migrants in(to) Europe. Social Media Society,
4(1), 1–11.
9.
BrownD. W.AullL. L. (2017).
Elaborated specificity versus emphatic generality: A corpus based comparison of higher- and lower-scoring advanced placement exams in English. Research in the Teaching of English,
51(4), 394–417.
10.
BrubakerR. (2014).
Linguistic and religious pluralism: Between difference and inequality. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,
41(1), 3–32.
11.
CanagarajahS. A. (2006).
The place of world Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication,
57(4), 586–618.
12.
CanagarajahS. A. (2017). Introduction, The nexus of migration and language: The emergence of a disciplinary space. In S. A. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language (pp. 1–28). Routledge.
13.
CanagarajahS. A. (2018). Transnationalism and translingualism: How they are connected. In X. You (Ed.), Transnational writing education: Theory, history, and practice (pp. 41–60). Routledge.
14.
CharmarkehH. (2013).
Social media usage, Tahriib (migration), and settlement among Somali refugees in France. Refuge,
29(1), 43–52.
15.
ChiuL. (2006).
Critical reflection: More than nuts and bolts. Action Research,
4(2), 183–203.
16.
CramerP. (2008).
The frequency and discourse features of the public metonym. Critical Discourse Studies,
5(3), 265–280.
17.
DekkerR.EngbersenG.KlaverJ.VonkH. (2018).
Smart refugees: How Syrian asylum migrants use social media information in migration decision-making. Social Media Society, 4(1), 1–11.
18.
DingH.SavageG. (2013).
Guest editors’ introduction: New directions in intercultural professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly,
22(1), 1–9.
19.
DryerD. (2016).
Appraising translingualism. College English,
78(3), 274–283.
20.
Evia, C., & Patriarca, A. (2012). Beyond compliance: Participatory translation of safety communication for Latino construction workers. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(3), 340–367
21.
FaistT. (2016).
Cross-border migration and social inequalities. Annual Review of Sociology,
42(1), 323–346.
22.
FiedlerA. (2019).
The gap between here and there: Communication and information processes in the migration context of Syrian and Iraqi refugees on their way to Germany. International Communication Gazette,
81(4), 327–345.
23.
FotopoulosS.KaimakliotiM. (2016).
Media discourse on the refugee crisis: On what have the Greek, German and British press focused?European View,
15(2), 265–279.
24.
FrostE. A. (2013).
Transcultural risk communication on Dauphin Island: An analysis of ironically located responses to the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. Technical Communication Quarterly,
22(1), 50–66.
25.
GabrielatosC.BakerP. (2008).
Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press, 19962005. Journal of English Linguistics,
36(1), 5–38.
26.
GeeJ. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis.
Routledge.
GonzalesL. (2018).
Designing for intersectional, interdependent accessibility: A case study of multilingual technical content creation. Communication Design Quarterly Review,
6(4), 35–45.
31.
GonzalesL.ZantjerR. (2015).
Translation as a user-localization practice. Technical Communication,
62(4), 271–284.
32.
Hardt-MautnerG. (1995). ‘
How does one become a good European?’: The British press and European integration. Discourse & Society,
6(2), 177–205.
33.
HeughK. (2017). Displacement and language. In S. A. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language (pp. 187–206). Routledge.
34.
HornerB.LuM.RoysterJ. J.TrimburJ. (2011).
Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English,
73(3), 303–321.
35.
HuaZ.HandfordM.YoungT. J. (2017).
Framing interculturality: A corpus based analysis of online promotional discourse of higher education intercultural communication courses. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
38(3), 283–300.
36.
HuckinT. (2002a). Critical discourse analysis and the discourse of condescension. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 155–176). Hampton.
37.
HuckinT. (2002b).
Textual silence and the discourse of homelessness. Discourse & Society,
13(3), 347–372.
38.
HuckinT.AndrusJ.Clary-LemonJ. (2012).
Critical discourse analysis and rhetoric and composition. College Composition and Communication,
64(1), 107–129.
HurstE. (2017). Regional flows and language resources. In S. A. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language (pp. 171–186). Routledge.
41.
International Organization for Migration. (2000). World migration report (WMR) 2000. https://www.iom.int/wmr
42.
International Organization for Migration. (2003). World migration report (WMR) 2003. https://www.iom.int/wmr
43.
International Organization for Migration. (2005). World migration report (WMR) 2005. https://www.iom.int/wmr
44.
International Organization for Migration. (2008). World migration report (WMR) 2008. https://www.iom.int/wmr
45.
International Organization for Migration. (2010). World migration report (WMR) 2010. https://www.iom.int/wmr
46.
International Organization for Migration. (2011). World migration report (WMR) 2011. https://www.iom.int/wmr
47.
International Organization for Migration. (2013). World migration report (WMR) 2013. https://www.iom.int/wmr
48.
International Organization for Migration. (2015). World migration report (WMR) 2015. https://www.iom.int/wmr
49.
International Organization for Migration. (2017). World migration report (WMR) 2018. https://www.iom.int/wmr
KhosraviNikM. (2010).
The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Politics,
9(1), 1–28.
58.
JägerS. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of a critical discourse and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Introducing qualitative methods: Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–62). SAGE Publications Ltd.
59.
JonesN. (2017).
Modified immersive situated service learning: A social justice approach to professional communication pedagogy. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,
80(1), 6–28.
60.
JonesN.WaltonR. (2018). Using narratives to foster critical thinking about diversity and social justice. In A. Haas, & M. Eble, (Eds.), Key theoretical frameworks for: Teaching technical communication in the 21st century (pp. 241–267). Utah State University Press.
61.
JonesN.MooreK.WaltonR. (2016).
Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly,
25(4), 211–229.
62.
JonesN.WilliamsM. (2017).
The social justice impact of plain language: A critical approach to plain-language analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,
60(4), 412–429.
63.
LeydensJ. (2012). What does professional communication research have to do with social justice? Intersections and sources of resistance. IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 1–13.
64.
Long, K. (2015). From refugee to migrant? labor mobility’s protection potential. Migration Policy Institute.
65.
LuM.HornerB. (2016).
Introduction: Translingual work. College English,
78(3), 207–218.
MautnerG. (2009). Checks and balances: How corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 122–143). Sage Publications Inc.
68.
MaylathB.MartinR. M.PintoM. P. (2015).
Translation and international professional communication: Building bridges and strengthening skills. Connexions International Professional Communication Journal,
3(2), 3–9.
69.
MerryS. E. (2006).
Transnational human rights and local activism: Mapping the middle. American Anthropologist,
108, 38–51.
70.
MesthrieR. (2017). Slavery, indentured work, and language. In S. A. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language (pp. 228–242). Routledge.
71.
MeyerM. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak &. M. Meyer (Eds.), Introducing qualitative methods: Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–62). SAGE Publications Ltd.
72.
Migration News. (2012). Ethiopia/Somalia: “Migrating will offer me a better life. I will do whatever it takes”. IOM Gender and Migraton News, 38.
73.
PerreaultG.PaulN. (2018).
An image of refugees through the social media lens: A narrative framing analysis of the Humans of New York series ‘Syrian Americans. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies,
7(1), 79–102.
74.
PigozziL. M. (2018). Negotiating informed consent: Bueno aconsejar, mejor remediar (it is good to give advice, but it is better to solve the problem). In L. B. Meloncon & J. Scott (Eds.), Methodologies for the rhetoric of health & medicine (pp. 195–213). Taylor and Francis.
75.
ReedH. E.LudwigB.BraslowL. (2016). Forced migration. In M. J. White (Ed.), International handbook of migration and population distribution (pp. 605–625). Springer.
76.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001) Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and anti-semitism. London and New York: Routledge.
77.
RoseE. (2016).
Design as advocacy: Using a human-centered approach to investigate the needs of vulnerable populations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
46(4), 427–445.
78.
ShacharA. (2009). The birthright lottery: Citizenship and global inequality.
Harvard University Press.
79.
SharmaS. (2018). Translanguaging in hiding: English-only instruction and literacy education in Nepal. In X. You (Ed.), Transnational writing education: Theory, history, and practice (pp. 79–94). Routledge.
80.
St. AmantK. (2019).
The cultural context for communicating care. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
49(4), 367–382.
81.
SunH. (2006).
The triumph of users: Achieving cultural usability goals with user localization. Technical Communication Quarterly,
15(4), 457–481.
82.
TovaresA. V.KamwangamaluN. M. (2017). Migration trajectories: Implications for language proficiencies and identities. In S. A. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language (pp. 207–227). Routledge.
83.
Van DijkT. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Introducing qualitative methods: Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95–120). SAGE Publications Ltd.
84.
VerzellaM.TommasoL. (2014).
Learning to write for an international audience through cross-cultural collaboration and text-negotiation. Changing English,
21(4), 310–321.
85.
WaltonR. (2013).
How trust and credibility affect technology-based development projects. Technical Communication Quarterly,
22(1), 85–102.
86.
WaltonR. (2016).
Supporting human dignity and human rights: A call to adopt the first principle of human-centered design. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
46(4), 402–426.
87.
WaltonR.JonesN. (2013).
Navigating increasingly cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary, and cross-organizational contexts to support social justice. Communication Design Quarterly Review,
1(4), 31–35.
88.
WeningerC. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. In L. M. Given (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 146–148). SAGE Publications Inc.
89.
WhitneyJ. (2013).
The 2010 citizens clean elections voter education guide: Constructing the “illegal immigrant” in the Arizona voter. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
43(4), 437–455.
90.
WittebornS. (2015).
Becoming (im)perceptible: Forced migrants and virtual practice. Journal of Refugee Studies,
28(3), 350–367.
91.
WodakR. (2001). What CDA is about—A summary of its history. Important concepts and its developments. In R.Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Introducing qualitative methods: Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–13). SAGE Publications Ltd.
92.
YoungI. M. (2009). Five faces of oppression. In G. Henderson & M. Waterstone (Eds.), Geographic thought: A praxis perspective (pp. 55–71). Routledge.
