The article examines how undocumented Venezuelan migrants traveling through Central America toward the United States‑Mexico border navigate a landscape of “information precarity” and confront disinformation. The authors set out to answer three guiding questions:
Report abstract:
“This article develops a phenomenological approach to examine the intersection of global migration and rising concerns about disinformation… Drawing on interviews with Venezuelans en route to the United States‑Mexico border through Central America, the article analyzes how undocumented migrants live amid information precarity, how they relate to disinformation, and how disinformation affects their decisions… The article thus advocates for a deeper exploration of migrants’ sociocultural beliefs rather than focusing solely on issues such as information accuracy, accessibility, flows, and platforms when accounting for disinformation.”
Global migration is accelerating; the International Organization for Migration estimates that 281 million people are on the move, representing roughly 3.6 % of the world’s population. At the same time, scholars warn of a growing wave of deliberate disinformation designed to sow confusion for political gain. Migrants, especially those without legal status, experience a distinctive form of “information precarity”—a qualitative feeling of insecurity that leaves them susceptible to rumors, misleading content, and manipulation.
Most existing research treats disinformation as a problem of inaccurate facts or platform design. This study departs from that tradition by applying a phenomenological lens: it foregrounds migrants’ lived experience, cultural beliefs, and especially their religious convictions. By doing so, it reframes the issue from a purely technical or informational deficit to a deeply social and affective phenomenon. The work is also unique because it draws on fresh, in‑depth interviews with a specific cohort—Venezuelan migrants temporarily in Costa Rica—providing ground‑level insight into a population that is often studied only through macro‑level statistics.
The interviewees displayed a pervasive distrust of mainstream media. They described news outlets as “lying a lot” and often avoided news altogether, preferring to rely on what they could see with their own eyes. One participant summed this up: “I only believe in what my own eyes see, because I no longer know who to really believe.”
Instead of traditional news, migrants turned to a handful of digital platforms, such as Facebook, TikTok, and especially WhatsApp, to gather information, share tips, and maintain contact with family. Visual content on these platforms served as “public images,” helping travelers visualize risks and routes. A respondent recalled that videos “went viral on ‘Face’ [Facebook], TikTok, and Kwai,” providing concrete guidance for crossing dangerous terrain.
Personal networks were central to the exchange of (dis)information. WhatsApp, in particular, functioned as a lifeline for daily coordination: “We exchange WhatsApp numbers and keep each other informed: ‘Look, I’m in this place now, you need to go this way…’” participants explained. Yet the flow of information was not always truthful; some migrants admitted to deliberately altering or withholding facts when they believed it would protect them or improve their chances of receiving aid. One interviewee noted, “We don’t tell them that we are begging… If we did tell relatives the truth, they would fly us back on a plane.”
Religion emerged as a powerful anchor. Across the interviews, Christian faith was invoked as the ultimate source of guidance, often outweighing any secular information source. Statements such as “We always trust in God, and we follow the path” illustrate how migrants framed uncertainty and risk within a spiritual worldview. This “mixed rationalities”, the combination of experiential observation and religious belief, provided a stable reference point amid chaotic information flows.
Overall, the study concludes that information is secondary for these migrants. While they consume incidental content, they do not actively seek it to reduce risk; instead, they rely on personal experience, trusted personal contacts, and divine guidance to navigate their journeys.
One striking theme is the concept of “mixed rationalities,” where migrants blend pragmatic, sensory knowledge with deep religious conviction, creating a dual epistemic framework that cushions the anxiety produced by uncertain information. Another notable finding is the reliance on visual symbols—such as colored bags indicating safe routes—which function as informal, trusted signage that often supersedes official warnings.
An outlier emerges in the strategic use of misinformation: rather than being merely victims, some migrants purposefully fabricate or omit information to safeguard themselves, demonstrating agency in an otherwise precarious environment. Finally, the double‑edged nature of mobile technology is evident; phones enable rapid coordination and access to vital updates, yet they also expose migrants to tracking, scams, and rumor cascades.
Humanitarian NGOs and aid organizations can redesign information campaigns to honor migrants’ religious worldview and embed messages within trusted community rituals. Co‑producing short video testimonies with faith leaders, distributing low‑bandwidth safety alerts via WhatsApp, and providing printed guides that reference familiar visual cues (like bag colors) would likely increase uptake.
Policymakers and migration authorities should recognize that top‑down warnings are often dismissed. Partnering with migrant peer networks, formalizing community liaison roles for those who have completed the route, and issuing multilingual SMS alerts that echo migrants’ existing symbolic language can improve the credibility of official communications.
Academics and researchers are invited to extend the phenomenological approach to other migration corridors and to test the “mixed rationalities” model quantitatively. Comparative ethnographies across different cultural and religious contexts could reveal whether the observed interplay between faith and information holds more broadly.
Technology companies and platform designers might develop features that mitigate misinformation while preserving privacy for vulnerable users. Options could include verified migrant groups with limited membership, anonymity modes to reduce fear of surveillance, and tools that surface trusted visual symbols.
Practitioners in counter‑disinformation should shift from pure fact‑checking toward contextual framing that acknowledges migrants’ lived experience and spirituality. Providing “context cards” that pair factual corrections with culturally resonant narratives may prove more persuasive than isolated debunking.
The authors also suggest avenues for future research: investigating the impact of AI‑generated content on migrant information ecosystems, conducting cross‑regional studies to see if the religiosity‑information dynamic persists in non‑Christian migrant groups, and testing prototype interventions (such as faith‑aligned messaging) for effectiveness in reducing harmful rumor uptake. These recommendations are directed at both practitioners seeking actionable guidance and scholars aiming to deepen theoretical understanding.
The study adopts a qualitative, phenomenological design. Between July and October 2023, the researchers conducted 25 in‑person, semi‑structured interviews with Venezuelan migrants temporarily residing in Costa Rica. Participants ranged from 21 to 50 years old, with a slight female majority (16 women, 9 men) and an average age of about 30. Interviews were carried out in Spanish, recorded, and transcribed with informed consent, following approval from an institutional review board.
The interview protocol focused on two main domains: everyday information and communication practices (including mobile phone and platform usage) and encounters with disinformation (covering perceived risks, sources of information, and trust in media). Data analysis followed an inductive grounded‑theory approach, moving from open coding to the development of six overarching themes: migration experience; information and communication practices; encounters with disinformation; role of social media; individual life experiences; and religion in migration.
While the sample is modest and confined to a single geographic context, the depth of the narratives provides rich insight into the phenomenological dimensions of migrants’ information environments. The authors acknowledge that the emergence of AI as a new variable and the limited scope of the sample suggest directions for broader, comparative investigations.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please take this short survey to help improve the KM4S web site. The survey is anonymous. Thank you for your feedback! (click on the screen anywhere (or on the x in the top right corner) to remove this pop-up)