*5.1. Method: Discourse Analysis*

The term 'discourse analysis' refers to a method for investigating the construction of social reality. Meanings we give to words and images depend on cultural assumptions and help to maintain cultural assumptions. Cultural values are linked to events. Language or images about certain events have a socio-cultural value, which in turn produces sociocultural effects. The system of communication expressions related to a wider social and cultural network is called 'discourse'. (McDonald 2003) There are many ways to study discourse, ranging from the more to less rigid and/or critical in approach. Several theorists, therefore, rightly point out the lack of clarity surrounding the analysis of discourses (cf. McDonald 2003; Garrett and Bell 1998; Van Dijk 1998; Said 1974).

For this research we have taken inspiration from Carol Bacchi's 'What's the Problem Represented to Be' (WPR) analysis of policy discourse (Bacchi 2009). Bacchi's approach draws heavily on a Foucaudian perspective in suggesting that we are governed by problematizations. Bacchi therefore does not distinguish between policy and policy proposals, because both are part of the broader discourse that influences the degree of social attention to a problem. In this way, administrators not only respond to existing social problems (which would be 'for the taking' for administrators); administrators play an active role in constructing these problems through the discourse they form in proposing and discussing policy. Both policy and policy proposals are aimed at addressing and solving problems; however, all policies rest on specific interpretations and presentations of 'the problem'. To return to the example we gave earlier, the proposal of a PVV member to close the borders in response to unaccompanied minors going missing shows that this member has a very specific problem view. The problem, according to him, does not seem to lie with the fact that these children are going missing, but with the presence of these children. In addition, policy and policy proposals are also shaped by (unspoken) 'self-evident' assumptions. For example, it can be assumed that the meaning of certain concepts is universal—think, for example, of the concept of the 'illegal' migrant—where in reality this is controversial. In this way we are partly governed by the ways in which certain things are problematized (as well as the way in which other matters are regarded as unproblematic). The aim of Bacchi's WPR approach is to identify and critically study the problematizations underlying a specific policy document or proposal and to uncover the (implicit) assumptions on which a problem interpretation rests.

It is important to note that a discourse analysis does not yield neutral or objective conclusions, as any scientific result is influenced by, among other things, the selection and execution of a method and the positionality of the researcher(s). Bacchi also emphasizes that applying the WPR approach does not guarantee homogeneous results. Not only do the personal interests, analytical focus and assumptions of the researcher(s) play a role in the selection of a relevant policy document or proposal, but their interpretation will also differ per researcher. Despite the systematic consideration of proximity and proportionality (in order to consistently differentiate between governing through migration and governing migration), there are many in-between cases; expressions which are neither fully governing through migration nor governing migration (or expressions which are both). In that respect, it is important to note that our analysis of public and political discourse is an impression of debates in Dutch society rather than an exact reflection of them. Finally, the political sensitivity of this analysis should also be acknowledged, as well as the risk that our personal political beliefs may influence conclusions. To make the analysis as neutral as possible, we will consistently state political colors from a party or other source, and we always work from the principle of charity, i.e., presenting other people's arguments in their strongest form.
