Constructing the 'Diversity Problem:' Policy Evolution and Educational Approaches in Norwegian Immigration Discourse (2015-2025)

• In Event: Contested citizenship and curriculum: Navigating diversity, nationalism, and censorship in global education policy

Proposal

Norway faces a profound contradiction that challenges its core identity as a “peace nation.” Despite its international reputation for mediating global conflicts (Pisarska, 2016; Skåland, 2010) and significant investment in democratic dialogue education, Norwegian immigration policy discourse from 2015 to 2025 has systematically constructed diversity as problematic, requiring intervention, control, and restriction. This research examines how this policy discourse creates impossible conditions for educators trained in democratic inclusion, transforming them into “unwilling mitigators” caught between competing institutional messages about diversity and belonging.
The contradiction begins with the 2015 refugee crisis response, when Norway introduced 18 restrictive measures with explicit goals of making the country “less attractive” to refugees (Parveen, 2020). This represented the most significant shift in Norwegian immigration policy since the 1970s, establishing what the government proposed as the “strictest asylum/immigration regime in Europe” (Parveen, 2020, p. 401). Simultaneously, programs like Dembra (Democracy Against Prejudice and Exclusion) continued training over 2,500 teachers across 80+ schools in inclusive democratic dialogue methodology (Nustad et al., 2020), creating a fundamental institutional contradiction.
This study employs Carol Bacchi’s (2009) “What’s the Problem Represented to Be?” (WPR) framework to analyze how Norwegian immigration policy discourse constructs immigration and resulting diversity as problems requiring governmental intervention. The analysis reveals how policy language portrays asylum seekers as burdens through references to “extraordinarily high arrivals” that exceed national capacity (Parveen, 2020), while emphasizing the need for “necessary tightening” in immigration policy (Regjeringen.no, 2016). The Integration Act of 2021 (Norwegian Ministries, 2021) exemplifies this construction, shifting from accommodation approaches to “competency levels” and “individual responsibility,” positioning immigrants as inherently deficient rather than contributing community members.
The policy discourse analysis examines key documents, including Meld. St. 30 (Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security, 2016), the Integration Act of 2021, asylum communications, and family reunification policies spanning 2015-2025. Through thematic coding using (Braun & Clarke, 2006) Bacchi’s (2009) WPR approach, the research identifies consistent patterns in how diversity is problematized across policy domains. The analysis reveals how language choices create exclusionary frameworks, positioning immigrant presence as requiring “management” rather than celebration, and family unity becomes economic privilege rather than a basic human right.
These policy constructions create daily contradictions for educators implementing democratic dialogue programs. Teachers trained in Dembra methodology, which assumes mutual learning through democratic participation where all voices deserve equal hearing, must navigate policy environments emphasizing conditional belonging and temporary protection. When facilitating classroom discussions about cross-cultural understanding and human dignity, these educators encounter students shaped by policy messages suggesting their presence threatens social cohesion and requires constant monitoring.
The concept of “unwilling mitigators” emerges from this analysis as teachers become active mediators between contradictory institutional messages rather than passive policy implementers. Drawing on Coburn’s (2004) reconceptualization of institutional influence, the research demonstrates how educators navigate between restrictive immigration discourse and educational mandates emphasizing democracy, inclusion, and human dignity (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2023). These teachers face the impossible task of promoting inclusive dialogue while students witness classmates’ families losing legal status through enhanced cessation and revocation practices (Schultz, 2025) or experiencing family separation through stricter reunification requirements (Regjeringen.no, 2025).
This research addresses a critical gap in understanding how policy discourse shapes educational practice in diverse societies. While existing scholarship examines either immigration policy implementation (Parveen, 2020) or democratic education programs separately (Osler & Lybaek, 2014; Strand, 2016), limited analysis exists of their intersection and the resulting contradictions for practitioners. The study’s significance extends beyond Norway, as democratic societies worldwide grapple with similar tensions between inclusive educational values and exclusive policy discourse.
The theoretical contribution involves demonstrating how Bacchi’s (2009) WPR framework can illuminate the construction of diversity as threatening social cohesion, while revealing the mechanisms through which policy discourse creates structural barriers to peace education implementation. The analysis shows how “peace nation” identity becomes conditional and contradictory when diversity is simultaneously celebrated in educational policy and problematized in immigration discourse.
Methodologically, this research demonstrates the value of integrating policy discourse analysis with examination of educational practice. The systematic analysis of policy documents using WPR framework provides concrete evidence of problem construction patterns, while attention to educator experiences reveals how these constructions affect democratic dialogue implementation in practice.
The findings reveal three key mechanisms through which immigration policy discourse constructs diversity as problematic. First, temporal framing presents immigration as a crisis requiring immediate restrictive response, positioning normal human mobility as an exceptional threat. Second, capacity discourse suggests diversity exceeds national resources, creating zero-sum frameworks where inclusion of newcomers threatens existing community members. Third, conditionality language establishes hierarchies of belonging where immigrant participation requires demonstrating worthiness through compliance and integration performance.
These constructions create what the research identifies as fundamental institutional contradictions where the same governmental apparatus promotes inclusive democratic values through educational programming while simultaneously producing policy discourse that undermines these very principles. Teachers implementing democratic dialogue about equality and justice must reconcile government and government-created differential inclusion with educational emphasis on human dignity and democratic participation.
The implications extend to understanding how structural violence operates through policy discourse, creating conditions where immigrant communities face systematic marginalization despite formal commitments to inclusion. For peace education, the research reveals how policy environments can undermine even well-designed programs promoting democratic dialogue and cross-cultural understanding (Broderstad & Josefsen, 2023; Mårtensson, 2014; Thomas & Abdul-Razak, 2019).
This analysis contributes to comparative education scholarship by demonstrating how national policy discourse creates transnational challenges for democratic education implementation. As societies worldwide confront similar tensions between inclusive values and exclusive policies, understanding these policy-practice contradictions becomes essential for supporting educators navigating impossible institutional demands while maintaining a commitment to democratic principles. The research offers both theoretical frameworks for understanding policy-practice contradictions and practical insights for educators working within restrictive policy environments. By examining how “unwilling mitigators” emerge and adapt, the study provides evidence of educator agency and resistance strategies that maintain democratic dialogue possibilities despite institutional contradictions.

Author

• Cindy Yovanov, Drexel University School of Education