Changing Attitudes to Immigrants' Inclusion in the Welfare State in Norway and the United Kingdom - A deliberative approach to studying attitude-formation through social interactions

Public polarization about the issue of immigration is a significant source of deepening divisions in society. To better understand public attitudes to immigrants' inclusion in the welfare state, this research takes a novel, qualitative approach to studying public attitudes through social interaction during democratic forums conducted in Norway and in the United Kingdom in 2015.

The research analyses people's understanding of the issue of immigration and how they articulate their attitudes and interact with others. It finds that attitudes to immigrants' inclusion involve diverse considerations and create ambivalence, as people have both positive and negative perceptions of immigration and immigrants. Furthermore, as people differentiate between immigrants, preferences for inclusion and exclusion vary depending on the group of immigrants. Changes in attitude can be identified considering the specific social contexts, needs, and interests related to the in-group, to the welfare state in the country of destination, and to the social situations that immigrants face. Therefore, this research stresses the dynamism of attitude-formation and argues that public attitudes to immigrants should not be simplified to one single attitude either 'for' or 'against' the inclusion of immigrants, as preferences range between pro-inclusive and pro-exclusive depending on the specific group of immigrants and the specific social context under consideration.

Furthermore, this research provides new evidence about how specific institutional features are discursively reproduced through interaction during debates. The research argues that especially differences in the institutional and social context explain the differences between the inclusive approach to immigration in the Norwegian and the restrictive approach to immigration in the British democratic forums. These findings draw attention to the power of the framing of issues in the wider public- and political discourse, and to the role of the homogeneity and heterogeneity of views. While a homogeneity of views and prevailing consensus within group discussions (and within the wider social context) can limit the scope of attitude-formation and restrict the reconsideration of stances for or against inclusion, a heterogeneity of views and competing preferences engender more comprehensive discussion that includes consideration of a wider range of aspects and measures concerning the inclusion of immigrants.

In analysing the dynamism of attitude-formation and the diversity of considerations behind public attitudes, the research makes significant theoretical and methodological contributions to the knowledge in the field of welfare attitudes. The research findings complement existing research into attitudes to immigrants' access to welfare provision, which predominantly relies on public opinion surveys. Furthermore, the research has important implications for future research and policy-making.