Source: The Conversation – France
KEY TAKEAWAYS
-
Policymakers do listen to research, but evidence is only one part of the decision-making process. Public opinion, political pressures, values and competing priorities also shape migration policies.
-
How research is communicated matters. Evidence that is presented neutrally can help to build trust among citizens whose concerns and values must also be weighed in the balance.
-
Researchers can have greater impact by acting as honest brokers by presenting credible policy options and their potential consequences, uncertainties and trade-offs.
Researching migration issues can be really frustrating. Years of effort can be put into talking to people, collecting data, testing theories and coming up with what you see as solid evidence, but then it can feel like nobody’s listening. The same old arguments and misconceptions pop up in public discussions, bearing little relation to the evidence you and other researchers have developed.
This matters for a variety of reasons, not least because migration is a big issue in elections across Europe, North America, and beyond. So why aren’t people paying attention to what experts are saying? Researchers are putting a lot of effort into understanding the issues, but it doesn’t seem to be changing what people think or what governments do.
Researchers have solid evidence, but if policymakers don’t listen, then the result can be bad and even counterproductive policies.
Perhaps the answer for researchers is to knuckle down, do even more research, get
better data and try to get through to the people making decisions. But what if we’ve been asking the wrong question all along? After all, why would policymakers listen this time?
Our research suggests that things might not be quite so straightforward and, we would argue, this is a good thing. We surveyed researchers and policymakers across Europe and 7000 citizens in four European countries: Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
Bridging the research-to-policy gap
We found a lot of common ground between policymakers and researchers on their factual beliefs about migration. This challenges the idea that policymakers don’t really care about facts and evidence. Policymakers and researchers often agree on the basics of migration. This may come as a surprise given how often we hear that policymakers ignore evidence or are even immune to it.
The wider challenge is that research findings are just one voice in a noisy, crowded room. Policymakers must balance different priorities, values and interests.
And to make things even more complicated, the evidence itself is often unclear and tricky to understand – it’s rarely a simple, straightforward answer. Making decisions isn’t just about picking what’s true and what’s not. It’s about balancing different demands that can even contradict each other.
When policymakers decide, they look at research evidence, but they also think about their own beliefs, their sense of what the public wants and, of course, the political pressure they’re under. It’s not a straightforward battle between evidence and politics, it’s a complicated process of weighing different factors and making compromises.
This can mean evidence gets mixed with other factors, and policymakers have to weigh many considerations to make a decision. This means that the big gap isn’t where we thought it was. Policymakers do actually listen to researchers, but that’s not the whole story. What’s really going on is that policymakers care very much about what they think the public is concerned about.
And the public’s concerns aren’t just based on what experts say. They’re influenced by a lot of other things that have nothing to do with academic research.
Policymakers are trying to figure out what’s on people’s minds, and they’re not relying on research alone. Research and data can be helpful, but they can’t give us all the answers. This is because migration is often a deeply personal issue that also raises questions for all of us about what we value and believe in – it’s not just about numbers and statistics.
Consider, for example, the powerful images of thousands of people swimming toward the Spanish exclave of Ceuta in June 2026. The images that circulated shaped public reactions in ways that combined powerful imagery with emotional resonance. Research can put these developments into perspective, but representations of the events have entered the public consciousness and evoked underlying questions about identity, solidarity, belonging, rights and responsibilities.
People often think that citizens are stubborn and won’t change their minds, no matter what. But our research shows that’s not entirely true. When people have the chance to think through the facts, they can be open-minded and may even change their position after considering new information. This goes against the common idea that people are stuck in their ways and won’t budge. Many citizens will listen to opposing views and adjust their opinions accordingly. This challenges the stereotype that people are closed off to new ideas.
What really matters is how information is shared. When people believe that experts are trying to explain the facts, they’re more likely to trust them. But when experts come across as trying to sell an idea or point of view, it can have the opposite effect.
Rather than listening, people might become even more resistant to the idea, and it can even backfire. How evidence is presented makes a big difference in how it’s received.
What can researchers do to improve public discussions, create good policies, or fight misinformation?
We found that researchers can actually have more influence when
they don’t push their own views, but instead act as neutral experts – honest brokers, even – providing facts and helping people to understand the issues.
Being honest doesn’t mean you have to sit on the fence. It’s about being upfront with your thoughts and helping decision-makers and citizens see the potential outcomes of their choices. You’re not trying to sway them one way or the other, but trying to give a clear picture of what might happen if one option is picked over another.
In our study, we highlight the following key recommendations for helping migration researchers undo the disconnect:
-
reach out to the public. There is both an urgent need and a clear potential for public outreach by migration researchers
-
strengthen credibility by engaging in a nuanced discussion about values in migration research and how they can be coordinated in synergy with policymakers and citizens
-
think carefully about which role to choose as an expert in policy debates and, in particular, consider acting as an “honest broker” who presents a menu of credible policy options and their likely consequences, including uncertainties and trade-offs
-
consider using trust-preserving messaging: when presenting belief-challenging insights, explicitly state that the goal is explanation (evidence), not persuasion (advocacy)
-
design outreach for polarisation: test messages experimentally, segment audiences, and avoid one-size-fits-all frames
-
co-produce evidence communication: partner with decision-makers to communicate
consequences of different policy routes without pushing a single preferred option -
expect narrative contestation: complement policy with communication strategies attentive to identity, emotion, and solidarity – not merely factual correction
-
frame with care: avoid escalating threat cues unless the goal is mobilisation; where appropriate, use positive or efficacy-based frames that support constructive engagement
-
combine methods: integrate experiments, political psychology, computational analysis (including LLM-assisted mapping of narratives), and interpretive expertise.
To make a difference in public discussions, researchers who want their research to have an impact need to factor in this complex mix of factors and find ways to address them. Doing so can help create a more nuanced, informed conversation about migration that accounts for the many different perspectives and emotions involved.
Migration is more than just a debate about numbers and facts – it’s about what people believe in and who they are. People are open to trusting experts to guide their decisions, and policymakers can align their factual beliefs with researchers.
Still, you can show people all the evidence you want, but it won’t necessarily change their minds or end arguments. This is because migration is tied to people’s values and sense of identity.
So, what if we’re asking the wrong question?
Instead of wondering why people don’t pay attention to what migration researchers have to say, maybe we should be thinking about how researchers can make a difference and how they can help to build trust by being honest about what they know and what they don’t know, and by listening to people’s concerns and the underlying values they can represent.
This means that it’s not just about coming up with new ideas – it’s about helping people make sense of difficult choices. That’s where migration research can make a real impact.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
Andrew Geddes receives funding support from the European Union Horizon Europe programme for the project Innovating to Enhance Dialogues on Migration Policies and Practices (INNOVATE), 2024-2027, project number: 101132593.
Clare Llewellyn-MacRae receives funding support from the European Union Horizon Europe programme for the project Innovating to Enhance Dialogues on Migration Policies and Practices (INNOVATE), 2024-2027, project number: 101132593.
Eleonora Milazzo receives funding support from the European Union Horizon Europe programme for the project Innovating to Enhance Dialogues on Migration Policies and Practices (INNOVATE), 2024-2027, project number: 101132593.
Roderik Rekker receives funding support from the European Union Horizon Europe programme for the project Innovating to Enhance Dialogues on Migration Policies and Practices (INNOVATE), 2024-2027, project number: 101132593, as well as grants from the Dutch Research Council (VI.Vidi.231R.023) and the German Forschungsgemeinschaft (470816212/KFG43).
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/11/09/research-on-migration-is-going-unheard-how-can-we-remedy-that/