The opportunities and risks of mobile phones for refugees’ experience: A scoping review

Autoři: Tiziana Mancini aff001;  Federica Sibilla aff001;  Dimitris Argiropoulos aff001;  Michele Rossi aff002;  Marina Everri aff003
Působiště autorů: Department of Humanities, Social Science, and Cultural Industries, University of Parma, Parma Italy aff001;  Center of Immigration, Asylum and International Cooperation (CIAC), Parma, Italy aff002;  Research and Innovation Centre (NovaUCD), University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225684


Although mobile phones (MPs) are inexorably changing the forced migration experience, the realm of digital migration studies is still fragmented and lacking an analytical focus. Many research areas are still unexplored, while no narrative, scoping or systematic reviews have been conducted on this topic to date. The present review analyzed scientific contributions in Humanistic and Social Sciences with the aim to provide an overview of existing studies on the role of mobile phones (MPs) on refugees’ experience, and to inform practice and policymaking for advancing the use of MPs for the protection of migrants’ human rights. A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley framework and the JBI Reviewer’s Manual recommendations. A three-step search was carried out in four bibliographic databases by three independent reviewers. Review selection and extraction were performed using an interactive team approach. Forty-three theoretical and empirical contributions were selected, and their content analyzed. The contributions ranged from 2013 to 2018 and varied in terms of disciplines, objectives, methodology, contexts, and migrants’ origin, with the most studied group being Syrians. Five different topics concerning refugees’ experience and MPs’ usage emerged: (a) media practices in refugees’ everyday lives; (b) opportunity and risks of MPs during the migration journey; (c) the role of MPs in maintaining and developing social relations; (d) potential of MPs for refugees” self-assertion and self-empowerment; (e) MPs for refugees’ health and education. The results showed that modern devices, such as mobile phones, bring both risks and opportunities for refugees’ experience, thereby both favouring and threatening asylum seekers’ and refugees’ human rights. Recommendations to policymaking and services and associations for advancing the use of MPs for the protection of the rights of migrants have been proposed.

Klíčová slova:

Cell phones – Culture – Database searching – Economics of migration – Language – Social communication – Social networks – Human rights


1. Gillespie M, Osseiran S, Cheesman M. Syrian refugees and the digital passage to Europe: Smartphone infrastructures and affordances. Soc Media Soc. 2018;4(1):1–12.

2. Leurs K, Smets K. Five questions for digital migration studies: Learning from digital connectivity and forced migration in(to) Europe. Soc Media Soc. 2018;4(1):1–16.

3. Latonero M. The rise of mobile and the diffusion of technology-facilitated trafficking. Univ South Calif. 2012. Available from:

4. Gillespie M, Ampofo L, Cheesman M, Faith B, Iliadou E, Issa A, et al. Mapping refugee media journeys: Smartphones and social media networks. The Open University / France Médias Monde. 2016. Available from:

5. Chouliaraki L. Symbolic bordering: The self-representation of migrants and refugees in digital news. Pop Commun. 2017;15(2):78–94.

6. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Connecting refugees: How Internet and mobile connectivity can improve refugee well-being and transform humanitarian action. Geneva, Switzerland; 2016.

7. Benezer G, Zetter R. Searching for directions: Conceptual and methodological challenges in researching refugee journeys. J Refug Stud. 2014;28(3):297–318.

8. Ponzanesi S, Leurs K. On digital crossings in Europe. Crossings J Migr Cult. 2014;5(1):3–22.

9. Leurs K, Ponzanesi S. Connected migrants: Encapsulation and cosmopolitanization. Pop Commun. 2018;16(1):4–20.

10. Beduschi A. The big data of international migration: Opportunities and challenges for states under international human rights law. Georg J Int Law. 2018;49(4):981–1017.

11. Rossi M, Mancini T. I processi di acculturazione dei migranti forzati tra comunità ospitanti, comunità etniche e comunità virtuali [Acculturation processes of forced migrants within host, ethnic and virtual communities. A review of the literature]. Psicol Soc. 2016;11(2):105–40.

12. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x 30453902

13. United Nations General Assembly. Universal declaration of human rights. 1948. Available from:

14. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. Geneva, Switzerland; 1951. Available from:

15. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

16. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.

17. Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. Available from:

18. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1123 26052958

19. Leung L, Finney Lamb C, Emrys L. Technology’s refuge: The use of technology by asylum seekers and refugees. Sidney, Australia: University of Technology Sidney; 2009.

20. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 19622511

21. Glazebrook D. Becoming mobile after detention. Soc Anal. 2004;48(3):40–58.

22. Borkert M, Fisher KE, Yafi E. The best, the worst, and the hardest to find: How people, mobiles, and social media connect migrants in(to) Europe. Soc Media Soc. 2018;4(1):1–11.

23. Maitland C, Xu Y. A social informatics analysis of refugee mobile phone use: A case study of Za’atari Syrian refugee camp. 2015. Available from:

24. Tomita A, Kandolo KM, Susser E, Burns JK. Use of short messaging services to assess depressive symptoms among refugees in South Africa: Implications for social services providing mental health care in resource-poor settings. J Telemed Telecare. 2016;22(6):369–77. doi: 10.1177/1357633X15605406 26407989

25. Witteborn S. Becoming (im)perceptible: Forced migrants and virtual practice. J Refug Stud. 2015;28(3):350–67.

26. Curry T, Croitoru A, Crooks A, Stefanidis A. Exodus 2.0: Crowdsourcing geographical and social trails of mass migration. J Geogr Syst. 2019;21(1):161–87.

27. Latonero M, Kift P. On digital passages and borders: Refugees and the new infrastructure for movement and control. Soc Media Soc. 2018;4(1):1–11.

28. Kutscher N, Kreß LM. The ambivalent potentials of social media use by unaccompanied minor refugees. Soc Media Soc. 2018;4(1):1–10.

29. Charmarkeh H. Social media usage, Tahriib (migration), and settlement among Somali refugees in France. Refuge. 2013;29(1):43–52.

30. Harney N. Precarity, affect and problem solving with mobile phones by asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in Naples, Italy. J Refug Stud. 2013;26(4):541–57.

31. Wall M, Campbell MO, Janbek D. Syrian refugees and information precarity. New Media Soc. 2017;19(2):240–54.

32. Mansour E. Profiling information needs and behaviour of Syrian refugees displaced to Egypt: An exploratory study. Inf Learn Sci. 2018;119(3–4):161–82.

33. Kaufmann K. Navigating a new life: Syrian refugees and their smartphones in Vienna. Inf Commun Soc. 2018;21(6):882–98.

34. Alencar A, Kondova K, Ribbens W. The smartphone as a lifeline: An exploration of refugees’ use of mobile communication technologies during their flight. Media Cult Soc. 2018;

35. Smets K. The way Syrian refugees in Turkey use media: Understanding «connected refugees» through a non-media-centric and local approach. Communications. 2017;43(1):113–23.

36. Newell BC, Gomez R, Guajardo VE. Information seeking, technology use, and vulnerability among migrants at the United States-Mexico border. Inf Soc. 2016;32(3):176–91.

37. Dekker R, Engbersen G, Klaver J, Vonk H. Smart refugees: How Syrian asylum migrants use social media information in migration decision-making. Soc Media Soc. 2018;4(1):1–11.

38. Rosenau JN. Distant proximities: Dynamics beyond globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2003.

39. Chouliaraki L, Musarò P. The mediatized border: Technologies and affects of migrant reception in the Greek and Italian borders. Fem Media Stud. 2017;17(4):535–49.

40. Rae M, Holman R, Nethery A. Self-represented witnessing: The use of social media by asylum seekers in Australia’s offshore immigration detention centres. Media Cult Soc. 2018;40(4):479–95. doi: 10.1177/0163443717746229 29782576

41. Risam R. Now you see them: Self-representation and the refugee selfie. Pop Commun. 2018;16(1):58–71.

42. Leurs K. The politics of transnational affective capital: Digital connectivity among young Somalis stranded in Ethiopia. Crossings J Migr Cult. 2014;5(1):87–104.

43. Sreenivasan A, Bien-Aimé S, Connolly-Ahern C. Connecting homeland and borders using mobile telephony: Exploring the state of Tamil refugees in Indian camps. J Inf Policy. 2017;7:86–110.

44. Kutscher N, Kreß LM. «Internet is the same like food» –An empirical study on the use of digital media by unaccompanied minor refugees in Germany. Transnatl Soc Rev. 2016;6(1–2):200–3.

45. Putnam RD. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 2000.

46. Zinnbauer D. What can social capital and ICT do for inclusion? Inst Prospect Technol Stud JRC, Eur Comm. 2007. Available from:

47. Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol. 1973;78(6):1360–80.

48. Bacishoga KB, Hooper VA, Johnston KA. The role of mobile phones in the development of social capital among refugees in South Africa. Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries. 2016;72(1):1–21.

49. Wollersheim D, Koh L, Walker R, Liamputtong P. Constant connections: Piloting a mobile phone-based peer support program for Nuer (southern Sudanese) women. Aust J Prim Health. 2013;19(1):7–13. doi: 10.1071/PY11052 22951243

50. Walker R, Koh L, Wollersheim D, Liamputtong P. Social connectedness and mobile phone use among refugee women in Australia. Heal Soc Care Community. 2015;23(3):325–36.

51. Liamputtong P, Koh L, Wollersheim D, Walker R. Peer support groups, mobile phones and refugee women in Melbourne. Health Promot Int. 2016;31(3):715–24. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dav015 25804668

52. Koh LC, Walker R, Wollersheim D, Liamputtong P. I think someone is walking with me: The use of mobile phone for social capital development among women in four refugee communities. Int J Migr Heal Soc Care. 2018;14(4):411–24.

53. Veronis L, Tabler Z, Ahmed R. Syrian refugee youth use social media: Building transcultural spaces and connections for resettlement in Ottawa, Canada. Can Ethn Stud. 2018;50(2):79–99.

54. Tudsri P, Hebbani A. «Now I’m part of Australia and I need to know what is happening here»: Case of Hazara male former refugees in Brisbane strategically selecting media to aid acculturation. J Int Migr Integr. 2015;16(4):1273–89.

55. Sam DL, Berry JW. Acculturation: When individuals and groups of different cultural backgrounds meet. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010;5(4):472–81. doi: 10.1177/1745691610373075 26162193

56. Kang J, Ling R, Chib A. Strategic use of ICTs among North Korean women resettled in South Korea. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development; 2017 Nov 16–19; Lahore, Pakistan. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery; 2017.

57. Alam K, Imran S. The digital divide and social inclusion among refugee migrants: A case in regional Australia. Inf Technol People. 2015;28(2):344–65.

58. Mikal JP, Woodfield B. Refugees, post-migration stress, and Internet use: A qualitative analysis of intercultural adjustment and Internet use among Iraqi and Sudanese refugees to the United States. Qual Health Res. 2015;25(10):1319–33. doi: 10.1177/1049732315601089 26290542

59. Rohde M, Aal K, Misaki K, Randall D, Weibert A, Wulf V. Out of Syria: Mobile media in use at the time of civil war. Int J Human–Computer Interact. 2016;32(7):515–31.

60. Leurs K. Communication rights from the margins: Politicising young refugees’ smartphone pocket archives. Int Commun Gaz. 2017;79(6–7):674–98. doi: 10.1177/1748048517727182 29278239

61. Twigt MA. The mediation of hope: Digital technologies and affective affordances within Iraqi refugee households in Jordan. Soc Media Soc. 2018;4(1):1–14.

62. Sijbrandij M, Acarturk C, Bird M, Bryant RA, Burchert S, Carswell K, et al. Strengthening mental health care systems for Syrian refugees in Europe and the Middle East: Integrating scalable psychological interventions in eight countries. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2017;8(sup2):1388102. doi: 10.1080/20008198.2017.1388102 29163867

63. Sandoval LR, Torous J, Keshavan MS. Smartphones for smarter care? Self-management in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(8):725–8. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.16090990 28760015

64. Bradley L, Lindström NB, Hashemi SS. Integration and language learning of newly arrived migrants using mobile technology. J Interact Media Educ. 2017;2017(1):3.

65. O’Mara B, Harris A. Intercultural crossings in a digital age: ICT pathways with migrant and refugee-background youth. Race Ethn Educ. 2016;19(3):639–58.

66. Dahya N, Dryden-Peterson S. Tracing pathways to higher education for refugees: The role of virtual support networks and mobile phones for women in refugee camps. Comp Educ. 2017;53(2):284–301.

67. Livingstone S, Sefton-Green J. The class: Living and learning in the digital age. New York, NY: NYU Press; 2016.

68. Carvalho J, Fonseca G, Francisco R, Bacigalupe G, Relvas AP. Information and communication technologies and family: Patterns of use, life cycle and family dynamics. J Psychol Psychother. 2016;6(240).

69. Mascheroni G. Parenting the mobile Internet in Italian households: Parents’ and children’s discourses. J Child Media. 2014;8(4):440–56.

70. Griffiths M. Internet addiction: Fact or fiction? Psychologist. 1999;12(5):246–50.

71. Livingstone S, Smith PK. Annual research review: Harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: the nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2014;55(6):635–54. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12197 24438579

72. Vincent J, Haddon L. Smartphones cultures. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2018.

73. Diminescu D. The connected migrant: An epistemological manifesto. Soc Sci Inf. 2008;47(4):565–79.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12