Can a successful collective action frame backfire for its main audience? Extent literature would argue that if a frame underserves key stakeholders, the frame is likely to be revised, contested or replaced. We find, however, the case of a dominant collective action frame, which is actively maintained, despite excluding a large proportion of its key audience. Our in-depth investigation of Australia's refugee employment support industry shows how service providers maintain the dominant framing of refugees as talent in interactions with employers and refugees, despite its unintended negative effects. We explain this contradiction and advance framing theory with the concept of insidious framing, a process that operates deceptively against its purpose, but is actively maintained by key actors because they are unaware of its adverse impacts. Furthermore, we contribute to research on frame maintenance by elucidating a new form of frame amplification – versatility – that simultaneously narrows and expands the meanings attached to a frame. Finally, our findings contribute to broadening debates on refugee employment, demonstrating how a well-intentioned framing of refugees as having strong labor market value can undermine the effectiveness of employment support for the most vulnerable refugee jobseekers.
