Migration and community in an age of digital connectivity: A survey of media use and integration amongst migrants in Iceland

A rich body of scholarship has highlighted how information and communication technologies enable migrants to maintain ties with different communities (Diminescu, 2008; Licoppe, 2004; Smets et al., 2019). In Touch, a 2018 documentary directed by Paweł Ziemilski, explores virtual connections between Polish migrants in Iceland and their relatives in Poland. Juxtaposing and layering recordings of virtual conversations and images filmed in Poland and Iceland, the documentary visualises the subjects’ virtual co-presence in multiple locations through digital media.

We examine the implications of migrants’ connections to their countries of origin through social and other media (news and current affairs programmes) for their integration in receiving communities. We understand integration as the involvement of migrants in different areas in the receiving society, covering social, economic, and political indicators of integration, as well as subjective experiences in the receiving society. We further ask whether migrants’ use of media from their country of origin is associated with their integration both in offline and digital communities in the receiving society, or whether there are discrepancies between the two. Prior studies show that frequent connections to places of origin through media have a positive effect on migrants’ social integration in receiving societies (Alencar & Deuze, 2017; Licoppe, 2004). At the same time, migrants who use media from their countries of origin more often perceive more discrimination and more negative perspectives about migrants in the receiving society (Itzigsohn & Saucedo, 2002). The important role of media in facilitating migrants’ bonds with different communities calls for a reconceptualisation of integration practices, as there is little research that scrutinises migrants’ integration practices in both online and offline communities (Mittelstädt & Odag, 2015).

We analyse quantitative data derived from a survey conducted amongst migrants in Iceland in 2018 (N = 2,139). A study on Iceland is well-suited for scrutinising digital connectivity of migrants, because the country is situated remotely in the North Atlantic and highly digitalised. Digital connectivity is particularly relevant for people moving to remote destinations, because they have fewer opportunities to maintain contact in other ways, such as through return visits (Dziekońska, 2021).

We begin by introducing the theoretical background and discuss prior findings on social media and media use amongst migrants. We then contextualise Iceland as our case study and describe the method and results of the quantitative analysis. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings.

Iceland is an island nation of 360,000 inhabitants located in the Atlantic Ocean, with mainland Europe (Norway) being 970 kilometres away and mainland North America being 2,070 kilometres away. Iceland has the highest number of Internet users per capita in the Nordic countries (Europe Internet Stats, 2021), and Facebook is the most popular social media platform and very positively received amongst Icelanders (EMC Rannsóknir, 2019; Guðmundsson, 2019). According to a survey amongst 929 Icelanders (aged 18 and older) conducted by Gallup in 2018, the percentage of Facebook users in Iceland is 93 per cent, the highest in the Nordic countries (MMR, 2018).

The number of migrants in Iceland has increased rapidly in recent years. In September 2020, about 15 per cent of inhabitants in Iceland were migrants, whereas in 2000, migrants comprised only about 3 per cent of the country’s population. We follow Statistics Iceland (2020: para. 2) in defining a migrant as “a person born abroad with both parents foreign born and all grandparents foreign born”.

The Icelandic migrant population is largely driven by labour migration, with many migrants working in the tourism, fishing, and construction industries and care work (Júlíusdóttir et al., 2013). There is a relatively small number of refugees (Ragnarsdóttir, 2020). The largest group of migrants in Iceland (37%) is from Poland (20,477), followed by those from Lithuania (3,277) and the Philippines (2,085) (Statistics Iceland, 2020). Poland’s and Lithuania’s EU memberships in 2004 encouraged migration from these countries to countries within the EEA (Skaptadóttir, 2015). People from Asian countries, such as the Philippines and Thailand, increasingly migrated to Iceland during the economic boom of the 2000s, often to work in fisheries (Skaptadóttir, 2015).

Access to the Icelandic labour market is prioritised for migrants from the new EU member states. Consequentially, migrants from the Philippines “increasingly indicate uniting with family as a reason for migrating to Iceland” (Skaptadóttir, 2015: 178). Dziekońska (2021: 145) discussed the case of circular migrants from Poland and how their intention to stay in Iceland temporarily – even though they often stayed longer than intended – “stopped them from entering into close relationships with individuals from the host society”. Dziekońska (2021: 145) added that they surround themselves with Polish customs and culture “also by means of electronic media and transnational communication with family and friends in the homeland”. Migrants from the Philippines maintain ties to their country of origin, particularly through remittances, and mention that connections through digital media are an important factor in ensuring the continuation of these ties (Skaptadóttir, 2019).

The considerable geographical distance between Iceland and mainland Europe and North America affects the way migrants connect to their countries of origin, as frequent return visits are more challenging compared with migrants located closer to their place of origin (Dziekońska, 2021). This geographical separation is reflected in the media use of migrants who maintain ties with their families abroad. A comparative study amongst Polish migrants in Iceland and Austria indicated that migrants in Iceland use computer hardware more often than those in Austria, who use telephones more frequently (Krzyżowski, 2015). The same study showed that migrants in Iceland communicate with their elderly parents more frequently than those in Austria, demonstrating that migrants in Iceland compensated for their absence and infrequency of visits with more frequent communication (Krzyżowski, 2015).

Another study showed that Polish migrants in Iceland who perceive the discourse on migrants more negatively are drawn to Polish-language media (Ólafs & Zielińska, 2010). This could indicate that such migrants resort to reactive transnationalism when confronted with negative portrayals, turning to media from their country of origin rather than Icelandic media. Studies analysing Icelandic media reports between 2006–2010 indicated that “one third of the coverage [about migrants] in Iceland was in relation to crime and police matters” (Ólafs & Zielińska, 2010: 77). Loftsdóttir discussed negative portrayals of Lithuanians in Icelandic media and in the popular Icelandic crime television series Trapped (Loftsdóttir, 2017; Lóftsdóttir et al., 2017). Some of Loftsdóttir’s interlocutors decided not to disclose their country of origin to Icelanders due to the negative public discourse in Iceland about migrants from specific countries (Loftsdóttir, 2017), demonstrating the power of the media on migrants’ integration and trust. The increase of migration to Iceland has encouraged the emergence of different types of ethnic media, particularly Polish-language media, such as a Polish version of the Icelandic national broadcaster RÚV, or the news media Iceland News Polska.

Based on research on migrants’ integration in receiving societies, we examine how migrants’ practices of news consumption and social media consumption relate to their integration in the receiving country. Scholarship demonstrates that media use can be associated both with more effective integration of migrants and with migrants’ withdrawal from interactions in receiving countries. We aim to supplement the number of smaller-scale, often qualitative studies conducted amongst specific groups of migrants with a study on data collected amongst a large number of migrants in a destination country, in order to investigate the factors driving migrants’ media use overall. Having observed that frequent connections to countries of origin are often associated with more integration in the receiving society, our first hypothesis is based on the expectation that migrants who have frequent contact with their countries of origin will also be socially integrated in their place of residence:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Migrants who are in more contact to their countries of origin through social media and other media are more socially integrated in the receiving society.

We also query the association between migrants’ contact to countries of origin through social and other media and their attitudes towards life in the receiving society. Our second hypothesis is therefore based on the expectation of finding evidence of reactive transnationalism in our study, with migrants who are more dissatisfied with life in the receiving society being less connected abroad:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Migrants who are in more contact to countries of origin through media and other media express more negative attitudes towards institutions and the public discourse about migration in the receiving society.

As studies have shown that connections to migrants’ countries of origin have positive effects on their well-being, our third hypothesis is based on our expectation of a positive association between frequent connections to country of origin and migrants’ life satisfaction:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Migrants who use more media from country of origin are more satisfied with life in the receiving society.

The research presented in this article drew on empirical data derived from a quantitative study conducted in 2018. A survey (N = 2,139) was carried out in the form of an online questionnaire amongst migrants in Iceland. The study used convenience and snowball sampling. The University of Akureyri Research Centre (RHA) distributed the survey – available in Icelandic, English, Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Arabic, Russian, and Thai – via language schools, social media platforms and, in selected areas, through local assistants who were well-connected to migrant communities in these regions. Participants received written information on the purpose of the study, confidentiality, and anonymity of the data collected. Personal details, such as names, were not collected. Due to the small population of Iceland, additional measures were taken to protect participants’ identities, and instead of collecting information on countries of origin, information of world regions of origin was collected.

Tables 1–3 provide descriptive statistics for the following background variables: use of media and social media, and integration in the receiving society. Almost half of all respondents (49%) reported connecting with people from their country of origin on social media daily or almost daily. A third of respondents (34%) reported connecting with people from their countries of origin living in Iceland daily or almost daily. Slightly over half of all respondents (51%) reported using media from their countries of origin daily or almost daily. About two-thirds of the respondents (65%) were born in Central or Eastern Europe (73% of these answered in Polish); about one-fifth (22%) in Western Europe, Nordic Countries, or North America (73% of these answered in English); and 13 per cent in Asia, Africa, Central America, South America, or other countries (61% answered in English).

Prior studies emphasise the positive effect of migrants’ use of media from their countries of origin on their integration in receiving societies (Alencar & Deuze, 2017; Licoppe, 2004). Our findings provide a more nuanced perspective on migrants’ integration in communities across national borders. On the one hand, when the social factors “inviting Icelanders to your home and being invited by Icelanders to their home” and “participation in clubs and activities” are used as indicators for integration, those with more frequent contact with people from their country of origin are less integrated. On the other hand, we find that highly connected migrants are also more connected to the receiving society through media. Almost half of migrants in Iceland use social media and other media daily or almost daily to connect to their countries of origin, 30 per cent of which are with people from their country of origin living in Iceland.

Our research partially confirms H1, that migrants who engage with their countries of origin through media and social media are also integrated in the receiving societies, thus practicing the integration strategy in Berry’s model (Alencar & Deuze, 2017). However, it is noteworthy that we only find evidence of this form of biculturalism with regards to media use, and not regarding other factors of integration. Drawing on Berry’s (1997) model, this strategy is a form of digital biculturalism. Mitra and Evansluong (2019: 477) argue that migrants who are highly connected to their countries of origin “have little incentive to establish both online and offline connections with the host country”. Our findings indicate that this is the case for offline interactions, in which migrants with frequent contact to their countries of origin tend to participate less, but not for online activities. The practice of digital biculturalism and less integration in offline activities of the receiving society is in accordance with Miller’s (2021: 89) findings that “social media can effectively become the primary ‘home’ for an individual”.

The fact that migrants who are more connected to their countries of origin tend to be less involved in receiving societies could be explained by reactive transnationalism. Prior studies abroad (Alghasi, 2009); Itzigsohn & Saucedo, 2002) and in Iceland (Loftsdóttir, 2017; Ólafs & Zielińska, 2010) indicated that migrants with more negative attitudes towards the receiving society seek out connections with their countries of origin. We therefore expected to find evidence of reactive transnationalism in our study (H2); however, our findings do not support this conclusion. Migrants with frequent contact with their countries of origin do not differ from other migrants in their opinion about the local discourse on migrants in Iceland, level of trust in institutions in the receiving society, and experiences of discrimination.

Due to evidence that migrants’ connections abroad have a positive impact on their life satisfaction, we expected those with more connections abroad to express higher life satisfaction (H3). Our findings do not support this hypothesis, as we do not find an association between life satisfaction and migrants’ media use. A possible explanation for this finding is that both online and offline communities can provide the benefits of sharing space and social support with other members of digital communities (Baym, 2010). Thus, being a member of digital communities seems to be sufficient, or the primary way of socialising, for some digitally connected cosmopolitan migrants. This might be explained by Licoppe’s (2004) statement that digital connectivity to both places multiplies feelings of connectedness.

We also investigated other areas of integration, finding that economic integration was not associated with migrants’ media use and that political integration (voting) was associated with less contact with people from migrants’ countries of origin living in Iceland. This could indicate a segregation strategy in terms of political involvement, where migrants who are in more contact with other people from their country of origin are less integrated in the receiving community, politically speaking. Our study has implications for studies on migrant integration in the digital age because we identify offline and online integration as two distinct spheres of integration. Online integration in the receiving society might be considered as an additional, distinct factor used to measure social integration in receiving communities.

A few demographic factors were associated with migrants’ use of media from their country of origin. Overall, we find those factors were not relevant in explaining migrants’ connections abroad in comparison with other factors. We find that those intending to stay for a shorter time consume news and current affairs programmes from their countries of origin less but have more contact with their countries of origin. This is in line with the result that younger migrants used media from their country of origin more frequently, indicating that migrants have fewer contacts through social and other media to their countries of origin over time.

We identify differences in media use with regards to gender. Women are in more frequent contact with their country of origin through social media but consume news and current affairs programmes from their country of origin less frequently. This can be explained by different preferences for media use or different types of migration, with men being more likely to move for work and women for family reasons (Skaptadóttir, 2015).

Migrants from Western Europe, Nordic Countries, and North America are less likely to be in contact with people from their countries of origin living in Iceland. This can be explained by the size of the group of migrants from these regions, giving access to a larger group of migrants from the same place of origin, and the availability of social media groups and ethnic media targeting, for example, Polish migrants in Iceland. Furthermore, migration from Central and Eastern Europe is often circular labour migration, rather than migration because of family reasons where a network in Iceland already exists. Another possible explanation might be that discrimination experienced by migrants who are not from Western Europe, Nordic Countries, or North America (Lóftsdóttir, 2017; Lóftsdóttir et al., 2017) results in migrants being more inclined to seek out the community and comfort provided by ethnic media and by people from the same country of origin.

The results from this study conducted in Iceland is unique to some degree because of Iceland’s remote location and high digitalisation, resulting in migrants having fewer options for maintaining contact with people from their countries of origin (Krzyżowski, 2015). Furthermore, with migration being a relatively recent development in Iceland, the number of second-generation migrants is relatively small, and the tradition of transnational migrant communities is not as anchored as in other European places with third or fourth generations of migrants.

Basing our study on data collected amongst a large number of migrants in a destination country allows us to demonstrate the factors that drive migrants’ media use overall. We can thus supplement the number of smaller-scale, often qualitative studies conducted amongst specific groups of migrants. However, limitations of our study need to be acknowledged. We only focus on two types of media (social media and news and current affairs programmes). Further research could differentiate between types of media (e.g., different platforms, including print media). Furthermore, future research could expand this topic by including use of media from other locations, which would reflect the realities of migrants who maintain transnational bonds in multiple places. Another limitation is that the question about social media contact with migrants’ countries of origin does not specify whether the people connected with are in the country of origin. Future studies could differentiate between contact with people or groups located in countries of origin and those located in other countries. Since we used convenience and snowball sampling, we received a higher response rate amongst educated migrants who were more willing to share their experiences. Studies targeting hard-to-reach members of the population specifically, for example, circular migrants (Dziekońska, 2021), might add further insights into migrants’ relationship to the receiving society and their media use.

Information and communication technologies enable migrants to maintain bonds with multiple localities. This is exemplified in our study, because half the participants use social and other media from their countries of origin daily or almost daily. We distinguish two distinct spheres of migrant integration through offline and online spaces. Drawing on Berry’s (1997) integration strategy, we conclude that highly connected migrants engage in a form of digital biculturalism: They maintain active bonds with both receiving and sending societies through media. They tend to be less integrated in terms of offline activities, such as inviting Icelanders to their home or being invited by Icelanders to their homes, indicating that social and other media is the primary way of creating bonds with the country of origin and receiving society for some migrants. Our study thus has implications for studies on migrant integration, as our findings indicate the importance of distinguishing between integration in offline and online communities to adequately reflect how migrants form communities and a sense of belonging in the digital age.