Educational Research - the Ethics and Aesthetics of Statistics

7 To Frame the Unframable: Quantifying Irregular Migrants’ Presence 103
to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,
not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence
as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
return to it’. (UNHCR, 1993, p. 6). This term refers to the group of migrants who
have been found to ‘qualify’ for official refugee status (Watts & Bridges, 2005). In
many countries, people who do not meet the criteria that are set by the government
to be a ‘legal’ refugee are often called ‘undocumented migrants’ (or sans-papiers),
a term preferred by, among others, Paspalanova (2006), although it is unofficial
and has no legal force. In scientific literature, the term ‘illegal aliens’ (Van Dijck,
1996; Ommundsen & Larsen, 1999; Martiniello, 2005) has, to a large extent, been
replaced by the term ‘irregular migrants’ (Jandl, 2007; Broeders & Engbersen, 2007;
Laubenthal, 2007). This is due to the fact that ‘illegality’ is too often connected
with criminal behaviour and human rights advocates argue that ‘no human being is
illegal’.
Without going deeper into the discussion over which concept is most appropriate,
it should be noted that the definitions of preference are decisive for the way a
problem is conceptualised. Using different terminologies as well as different ways
of defining the used concepts can influence the statistical outcomes to a large extent
and will finally lead to different conclusions and recommendations. The target group
‘irregular migrants’ exemplifies the importance of conceptual demarcation: definitions
frequently have emotive connotations, they are often unclear and they are used
in very different ways. It is thus of crucial importance that research reports clearly
indicate the definitions to which they subscribe, who is or is not included in the target
group and why this is so. The motives behind conceptual choices should therefore be
made explicit due to the potentially unpleasant consequences of not doing so. That is
not as evident as it may seem. Definitions of irregular migration always include elements
of a negative definition (people without papers, who have no legal residence
status, who cannot rely on particular kinds of support). Therefore, policy changes
towards regular migration can lead to substantial changes in the irregular migrant
population. This is most obviously the case when regularisation programmes take
place, but besides this, attribution of, for example, working permits and medical
cards to particular groups may temporarily or permanently change their legal status.
Definitions are constructed in relation to their practices of reference that may historically
and locally differ to a large extent. The impossibility of deriving concepts
from empirical data lies at the basis of the incomparability of much of the research
data and outcomes. Unfortunately, this does not stop policy makers and journalists
making comparisons. The love for numbers comes with a desire to compare.
A good example is the Clandestino project that is funded by the European Union.
This project tries among other things to estimate the stock of irregular migrants
in different countries. The total number of irregular migrants in Europe (Picum,
2009) is estimated to be between 2.8 and 6 million. To complicate matters, there
is no implication that the mean estimate is the most likely number. The width of
these estimates is huge and their reliability is questionable. Estimates from different
countries are made with different (more and less reliable) methods. Different