Frames in Interaction

Frames in Interaction

Key Terms

  • Interaction
  • Frames
  • Frames in Interaction
  • Cognitive Frames
  • Media Frames
  • Audience Frame
  • Multiple Frames
  • Ambiguity
  • Uncertainty
  • Unpredictability
  • Incomplete Knowledge
  • Frame Production
  • Frame Alignment
  • Dialectics
  • Dialogical Interaction
  • Learning
  • Individual Learning
  • Social Learning
  • Agenda Setting
  • Priming

Interacting Frames

  • Frames in Interaction
    • Interaction as a cause of frame production, reflection, learning and frame alignment.
  • Competing Frames
    • Differing perspectives on a current issue. Contesting and competing.
  • Frames of Possibilities
    • Farmes of possible future due to uncertainty. Scenarios of future states.
  • Media Frames and Audience frames
    • Dielectics between media frames and audience frames

Frames – Sociological and Psychological

Source: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES IN FRAMING THEORY: A Systematic Examination of a Decade’s Literature

Conceptually, framing can be said to have two broad foundations—sociological (Entman, 1991; Gamson & Modigliani, 1987; Gitlin, 1980; Goffman, 1974) and psychological (Domke, Shah, & Wackman, 1998; Iyengar, 1991; Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). Framing research that grew from sociological foundations refers to the ‘‘frames in communication’’ (Chong & Druckman, 2007b, p. 106). In general, this research tends to focus on the ‘‘words, images, phrases, and presentation styles’’ (Druckman, 2001, p. 227) that are used to construct news stories and the processes that shape this construction.

Goffman (1974) was one of the first scholars to have developed the general concept of framing. As such, frames help people organize what they see in everyday life. Goffman calls frames the ‘‘schemata of interpretation,’’ a framework that helps in making an otherwise meaningless succession of events into something meaningful (p. 21). Gitlin (1980) defines frames as devices that facilitate how journalists organize enormous amounts of information and package them effectively for their audiences. He sees frames as ‘‘persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and exclusion,’’ organizing the information for both the journalists and their audiences (p. 7). According to Entman (1993), framing involves selection and salience—‘‘to frame is to select some aspects of perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described’’ (p. 52). Framing could have significant connotations as frames highlight some aspects of reality while excluding other elements, which might lead individuals to interpret issues differently.

Besides examining media frames, researchers have most enthusiastically studied the processes involved in the formation of the audience frame. There is much research that demonstrates how news framing influences information processing and the subsequent decision-making processes. Kahneman and Tversky (1979, 1984) were the first to demonstrate how different presentations of essentially the same information can have an impact on people’s choices. They found that individuals were inclined to take risks when ‘‘losses’’ are highlighted. But when the same information is presented in terms of ‘‘gains,’’ individuals shy away from risks. This approach, called ‘‘equivalency’’ (Druckman, 2001, p. 228), examines the influence of different but logically equivalent messages. In this approach, all factual and stylistic elements are comparable so that the pure influence of the frame can be observed. The ‘‘equivalency’’ perspective draws extensively on the experiments of risk-gain research (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979, 1984).

The ‘‘emphasis’’ (Druckman, 2001, p. 230) approach to framing demonstrates that accentuating certain considerations in a message can influence individuals to focus on those particular considerations. Scholars (Domke et al., 1998; Iyengar, 1991; McLeod & Detenber, 1999; Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997; Valkenburg, Semetko, & de Vreese, 1999) aligned to this interpretation of framing maintain that it is not always possible to manipulate a frame without changing some of the facts. Druckman (2004) aptly points out that in many cases, especially with political issues, there is not always a way to present a situation in different but equivalent ways. Instead, emphasis framing effects refer to situations when, by ‘‘emphasizing a subset of potentially relevant considerations,’’ individuals are led to focus on these considerations in the decision-making process (Druckman, 2004, p. 672). Thus, for political issues the concept of framing usually refers to ‘‘characterizations’’ of a course of action where a central idea provides meaning to the event (Sniderman & Theriault, 2004, p. 136). It is within ‘‘emphasis’’ framing that scholars have again differentiated frames—episodic versus thematic (Iyengar, 1991); strategy versus issue (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997); in terms of values (Brewer & Gross, 2005; Shah et al., 1996) to name a few.

The dual nature of framing research—frames in the news versus frames in the individuals’ minds—is evident. Scholars have examined both areas of literature in the past decades.

Frame competition

Source: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES IN FRAMING THEORY: A Systematic Examination of a Decade’s Literature

Moreover, in previous experimental research, scholars have focused largely on how different frames can affect the audiences’ attitudes, their learning, or political behavior. These studies have mainly focused on the difference of framing effects in single frame conditions, for instance, strategic versus value framing, loss versus gain, or episodic versus thematic (Iyengar, 1987, 1991; Nelson, Clawson, et al., 1997; Shah et al., 1996). However, there has been little research on the effects of multiple frame conditions, where the same subjects get alternative frames of an issue (Shah, Kwak, Schmierbach, & Zubric, 2004; Sniderman & Theriault, 2004). In general ‘‘the role of multiple competing frames has gone largely unexplored’’ (Chong & Druckman, 2007a, p. 101).

To be able to capture what actually happens in politics, ‘‘it is necessary to have an additional condition in framing experiments, in which opposing frames are presented together’’ (Sniderman & Theriault, 2004, p. 146). The authors consider ‘‘ambivalence’’ as key for framing effects (p. 137). They argue that the very nature of politics requires choices to be made between competing values. So value conflict is critical to the link between issue framing and political judgment. As such, the present study examined the published literature for the presence of studies exploring mixed frames.

Frames, Frame Effects, and Multiple Frames in Interaction

Sources: Toward a Relational Concept of Uncertainty: about Knowing Too Little, Knowing Too Differently, and Accepting Not to Know

Framing research has important roots in the work on cognitive biases and decision heuristics (Tversky and Kahneman 1981, De Martino et al. 2006). From this perspective, frames are representations of the external world, but these heuristic representations are biased when compared with accurate, decision theoretical representations (cf. Tversky and Kahneman 1981). This view has been adopted in classical decision-making theory, and served as a basis to study inconsistencies underlying judgment and choice (e.g., Kahneman and Tversky’s (1996) work on judgmental heuristics and limitations of intuitive choice). In this context, “framing effects” represent a violation of the standard economic account of human rationality. Having different formulations of what decision theory considers to be the same problem (in terms of expected utility) elicits different preferences: risk aversion can be encouraged by framing the situation in terms of gains, whereas risk seeking is encouraged by framing the situation in terms of losses (Tversky and Kahneman 1981). Although we do not share the assumption of the decision-heuristic approach that there is always a unique and correct decision theoretical formulation of a decision problem, this research does demonstrate that formulating a problem in a different way may elicit distinct decision preferences (Tversky and Kahneman 1981), affecting the meaning of and the importance attributed to uncertain information, and pointing toward different actions.

We understand frames as sense-making devices (Weick 1995) that mediate the interpretation of reality by adding meaning to a situation. The same situation can thus be framed in multiple, equally valid ways. For example, a situation of water shortage can be framed as a problem of “insufficient water supply” by one actor and, one of “excessive water consumption” by another. When a problem is framed as insufficient water supply, the most relevant uncertainties will be those associated with the amount of water available, and technical solutions that help avoiding water shortage can be favored (e.g., adopt a more efficient irrigation technology, Koundouri et al. 2006). However, when the problem is framed as an excessive water consumption issue, other solutions can be considered, such as changing the way in which water is used and consumed (e.g., diversification of crops). In this case, uncertainties associated with how society will react to a change in land use, or policies that stimulate the change (e.g., Common Agricultural Policy) will be the most important. In this way, frames significantly affect how meaning is inferred and how a situation is understood, serving to define a problem relative to core values and assumptions and to determine how to respond to it (Nisbet and Mooney 2007).

There have been two main approaches to framing research, namely, a cognitive approach where frames are defined as “cognitive representations,” and an interactional approach where frames are defined as “interactional co-constructions” (an in-depth comparison of both approaches can be found in Dewulf et al. (2008)). The cognitive approach has focused on frames as knowledge structures. It is based on the idea that frames are memory structures that help us organize and interpret incoming perceptual information by fitting it into pre-existing categories about reality (Minsky 1975). In contrast, the interactional approach focuses on how parties negotiate frame alignments in interactions. It considers frames as communicative devices, that is interactional alignments or co-constructions that are negotiated and produced in the ongoing interaction through “metacommunication” that indicates how a situation should be understood. From this perspective, frames are co-constructions of the meaning of the external world. This view has been adopted in multiparty collaborations and is exemplified in Dewulf et al. (2004) and Putnam and Holmer (1992).

Here, we adopt an interactional approach, where framing is defined as the process through which the meaning of a situation is negotiated among different actors (Putnam and Holmer 1992, Gray 2003a, Dewulf et al. 2004). Thus, framing is thought to be an interactive process where actors are engaged in developing an understanding of problems and alternative solutions. It is through the joint activities of framing, and reframing, that the actors can arrive at a joint problem definition. From this social experience, a common language and a new sense of community can emerge, opening up possibilities for further creativity and developments, and fostering learning and change (Bouwen 2001).

In our definition of uncertainty, we incorporate the concept of multiple frames, in order to capture the difference among multiple forms of knowledge. We consider each frame to represent a potentially valid view of a situation, reflecting the viewpoint of a particular community of practice (Bouwen 2001). Under the rationale of an interactional approach to framing research, we acknowledge the social processing of uncertain information and capture the interactions among actors during deliberative processes of framing and reframing. However, during these processes, encountering multiple frames that are incompatible is unavoidable, and results in ambiguity about the meaning and importance attributed to uncertain information.

Next, we discuss and describe some of the implications of ambiguity in the conceptualization of uncertainty.

Source: Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: Incorporating the human dimension

Source: Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: Incorporating the human dimension

Source: More is not always better: Coping with ambiguity in natural resources management

Strategies for dealing with Multiple Knowledge Frames

Source: Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: Incorporating the human dimension

Multiple or conflicting views about how to understand the system often represent different kinds of knowledge that are difficult to reconcile or integrate. The incompatibility in frames may result from different scientific backgrounds, from differences between context-specific experiential knowledge and general expert knowledge, from different societal positions of ideological backgrounds, and so forth.

In relational terms, actor A has a certain knowledge relation to phenomenon X, and actor B has a different knowledge relation to the same phenomenon X. In these kind of situations, relevant strategies address the relation between A and B and have something to do with dealing with differences.

We draw on a Table (Table 2) from Bouwen, Dewulf & Craps (2006) to give an overview of relevant strategies to deal with multiple knowledge frames.

Action PrincipleAccept. ofInterde- pendenceProcessCharac- teristicsPossible OutcomesContextContingen- cies
Persuasive Communic ationApproachPersuasionModerateExposure to persuasionAdoption or imitationUnequal involvement or competence
Dialogical LearningApproachMutual Interactive LearningHighJoint discovery and exchangeMutual understandi ng and synergyShared involvement
Negotiation ApproachTit for that, deal makingHigh/ moderateNegotiation tactical phasesFair deal, settlementCalculative involvement
Opposition al Modes ofActioncold or hot conflictLow or negationKeeping distance or escalationFreeze or dominanceMutual negation or fight

Table 2. Strategies to deal with multiple frames

The first strategy can be called the persuasive communication approach. This consists of trying to convince others of your own frame of reference, not by imposing it but by presenting it as attractive and worthwhile. This strategy is successful if others can be convinced to adopt your own frame of reference.

The second strategy is the dialogical learning approach, where the aim is to understand each other’s frames better through open dialogue and encourage learning on all sides. The literature on participation, organizational learning and consensual group decision making documents extensively this approach (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Wenger, 1998). The emphasis is on the interactive nature and reciprocal quality of the communication. Actors engage with each other as equally valuable partners and inclusion of all actors is the overall goal.

The negotiation approach aims at reaching a mutually beneficial and integrative agreement which makes sense from multiple perspectives or frames. Theories of conflict in organizations deal extensively with these negotiation strategies. Actors engage in a mutual calculative information sharing and positioning strategy. They develop alternative packages for giving and taking to come to a balanced sharing of positives and negatives. The negotiation can have a dominantly ‘integrating’ quality when both actors develop in common some synergetic win-win outcomes. The negotiation can rather be ‘distributive’ when the actors take a win-loose position and they distribute equally profits and gains in an antagonistic way.

The fourth strategy is the oppositional mode. When parties have a history of rivalry for resources or they don’t have any history of collaboration, taking or holding distance is likely. In conflict theory the distinction is made between cold and hot conflict. Cold conflict means that there is no recognition of mutual interdependence and distancing from each other is a dominant mode of operating. Hot conflict refers to heated opposition as a result of an adversarial experience of the mutual interdependency. Parties try by force a strategy to change the power difference in the relationship. When it comes to some form of collaboration, parties will move their strategy in the direction of a negotiation approach.

My Related Posts

Frames, Framing and Reframing

Frames, Communication, and Public Policymaking

What are Problem Structuring Methods?

Phenomenology and Symbolic Interactionism

Networks, Narratives, and Interaction

Erving Goffman: Dramaturgy of Social Life

Narrative, Rhetoric and Possible Worlds

Key Sources of Research

Framing mechanisms: the interpretive policy entrepreneur’s toolbox,

Ewert Aukes, Kris Lulofs & Hans Bressers (2017):

Critical Policy Studies, DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2017.1314219

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2017.1314219

“From Interactions to Institutions: Microprocesses of Framing and Mechanisms for the Structuring of Institutional Fields”

Gray, Barbara; Purdy, Jill M.; and Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz),

(2015). Business Publications. 79. https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/business_pub/79

Contrasting frames in policy debates on climate change adaptation

Art Dewulf∗

Issue Framing in Conversations for Change: Discursive Interaction Strategies for “Doing Differences”

Art Dewulf1 and René Bouwen2

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X) 1–26 2012

Deliberating Our Frames: How Members of Multi‑Stakeholder Initiatives Use Shared Frames to Tackle Within‑Frame Conflicts Over Sustainability Issues

Angelika Zimmermann1 · Nora Albers2 · Jasper O. Kenter3

Received: 11 December 2019 / Accepted: 5 March 2021

Journal of Business Ethics

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04789-1

Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research:

A meta-paradigmatic perspective

Art Dewulf, Barbara Gray, Linda Putnam, Roy Lewicki,

Noelle Aarts, Rene Bouwen and Cees van Woerkum

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726708100356

Volume 62(2): 155–193 Copyright © 2009

Toward a Relational Concept of Uncertainty: about Knowing Too Little, Knowing Too Differently, and Accepting Not to Know

Marcela Brugnach 1Art Dewulf 2Claudia Pahl-Wostl and Tharsi Taillieu 3


1Institute for Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, 2Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University, 3Center for Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art30/

Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together

M. Brugnach a,*, H. Ingram b,c

a Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands b Southwest Center, University of Arizona, United States
c School of Social Ecology, University of California Irvine, United States

environmental science & policy 15 (2012) 60–71

Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication

Dietram A. Scheufele 

Pages 297-316 | Published online: 17 Nov 2009

Mass Communication and Society 

Volume 3, 2000 – Issue 2-3

Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models

Dietram A. Scheufele1 & David Tewksbury2

1 Department of Life Sciences Communication and School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706
2 Department of Speech Communication and Department of Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

Framing as a Theory of Media Effects

by Dietram A. Scheufele

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.958.1933&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The End of Framing as we Know it . . . and the Future of Media Effects

Michael A. Cacciatore

Department of Advertising and Public Relations University of Georgia

Dietram A. Scheufele

Department of Life Sciences Communication University of Wisconsin and Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania

Shanto Iyengar

Department of Communication and Department of Political Science Stanford University

Mass Communication and Society, 19:7–23, 2016

The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions

Dietram A. Scheufele and Shanto Iyengar
The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication

Edited by Kate Kenski and Kathleen Hall Jamieson

Subject: Political Science, Political Methodology, Political Behavior
Online Publication Date: Oct 2014 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.47

News Framing Theory and Research

David Tewksbury and Dietram A. Scheufele

https://prod-com-bibliolabs-nuvique-app-content.s3.amazonaws.com/SID-0000003307846/SID-0000003307846.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEFQaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQChctaF%2FK2CfiZr%2F38ZR5uN2EGzbwIfzQR4La8zK%2F%2F8NAIgYYHP8QeI2sRjjHKVDGcXgp1GNPcc8%2F%2B2v4K0XDOamHIq9wMITRAAGgwwMDY4NDgwOTEwMTQiDBXPo7zzeyaG3Tb4ySrUA6LgiuHTH%2F9KihxRLYkZCk7iMGRDGHP3GlRlF9CCE1I9R1DuxpAwLtuzydz2vJHAUKxOBKwYwKTo0E%2FJY%2FISYO1czRMdYwwZLXnHl2sRThYWhnv3b095JFIKFh%2BPu1d18JDbxmhwtLtEQeWw1I3abis%2F2C4ZZZ6rJs4YRW6UEIP2TxaLOa6dxkPnMJ83OZGJEF7Ez0LK3KuTIP0QVYsn14YBg5RG%2Fju75KBPta41vbg6bvcdhU%2BSTxN75smmCOhRtuL6h1pwBoBVbECTzcMueJ62tiEsmAuG3uHa062pMmGunouX%2F0uOvXXGD14dNnYKcYBK0Pf8nkrBwBeaxm8BVRWrGmvAjC6jkor54Azxxh7%2FNJkLqqmmBH2o6AG5mAD71sn1G6lyZAbBfzNjD%2FDSP2f5lAgd2Qr96U5iS3XcKkJI9xal%2BNquQuPp7CayjSol9YyqdrP%2FuI45%2FUOZP%2FshJHRmPgzesYxuWKK9icjU4HFXBKc%2FoTWnA95eA3aQx6EwqXAkBM2aX4CRxE7xdVcIaaXsFSv8%2FS15mFi7UIXZ2gnujn5ZQqDG32qwhQb%2B02FukuJ%2Fe2vdxjgfLoz2jctjLGfH2gzaB%2F2qWAdQ6OFzTfKK95AJQDDmu8eHBjqlAZLm2b0f0I%2BeldoQC44wvSHbMSL4Mw2tBNZzIYMSnKVWcupVxElsci6599Z4ONO6%2BUcMXbl%2F8%2FaeoAAKWLXZJOcW1byyV%2FDCo4x6CZr3W8rYhVPfIbpPK25iYhH76cHuPVSuqy5XgpBLLn%2Fpi2lFT97rD5JH5A4YAZ1jy%2BCf1qUbwyomv6h1R%2FY5j8XLOWBuXtgVIbaKcvy4h7iqywKHQX6jI%2F%2F5MQ%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20210716T213140Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQDGBNSODPMJ2V7ZO%2F20210716%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=432bb6277efd8055bc4fb223e18e03afac6a84ff8801d1d4dfd4f61543dbf6d6#page=62

Social Movements

An Insider’s Critique of the Social Movement Framing Perspective”

Robert D. Benford, University of Nebrasku- Lincoln

Framing Social Interaction. Continuities and Cracks in Goffman’s Frame Analysis

  • August 2018

DOI:10.4324/9781315582931

  • ISBN: 9781315582931

Authors:

Anders Persson

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326753186_Framing_Social_Interaction_Continuities_and_Cracks_in_Goffman%27s_Frame_Analysis

MICROFOUNDATIONS OF FRAMING: THE INTERACTIONAL PRODUCTION OF COLLECTIVE ACTION FRAMES IN THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT

Juliane Reinecke

King’s Business School,

King’s College London, Bush House, 30 Aldwych London, WC2B 4BG United Kingdom
Phone: +44 20 7848 8753 Email: juliane.reinecke@kcl.ac.uk

Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari

Judge Business School University of Cambridge Cambridge, CB2 1AG United Kingdom Phone: +44 1223 768 128 Email: s.ansari@jbs.cam.ac.uk

Forthcoming in the Academy of Management Journal, Published Online: 1 Apr 2020

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1063

Are Logics Enough? Framing as an Alternative Tool for Understanding Institutional Meaning Making

Jill Purdy

Milgard School of Business University of Washington Tacoma

Shaz Ansari

Cambridge Judge Business School University of Cambridge

Barbara Gray

Smeal College of Business The Pennsylvania State University

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/267326/Are+Logics+Enough+May+31+2017.pdf;jsessionid=67B97F57301F833C96876E1CD4078A5C?sequence=3

Priming and Framing

Chapter 13 in Book

The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Sociology

edited by Wayne H. Brekhus, Gabe Ignatow

Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming

David H. Weaver

School of Journalism, University of Indiana, Bloomington, IN 47405

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.473.4056&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power

Robert M. Entman

School of Media and Public Affairs, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

Click to access Media%20and%20framing%20bias.pdf

A Failure to Communicate: Agenda Setting in Media and Policy Studies,

Michelle Wolfe , Bryan D. Jones & Frank R. Baumgartner (2013)

Political Communication, 30:2, 175-192, DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2012.737419

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737419

Media Effects Theory

PORISMITA BORAH

Washington State University, USA

The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, First Edition. Edited by Gianpietro Mazzoleni. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

DOI: 10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc156

Attribute agenda setting, priming and the media’s influence on how to think about a controversial issue

Sei-Hill Kim

University of South Carolina, USA

Miejeong Han

Hanyang University, South Korea

Doo-Hun Choi

University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Jeong-Nam Kim

Purdue University, USA

the International Communication Gazette 74(1) 43–59 a  2012

DOI: 10.1177/1748048511426991

A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments

Dennis Chong & James N. Druckman

Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

POLITICAL COMMUNICATION EFFECTS

Douglas M. McLeod University of Wisconsin-Madison

Gerald M. Kosicki The Ohio State University

Jack M. McLeod University of Wisconsin-Madison

Chapter in Book MEDIA EFFECTS Advances in Theory and Research Third Edition

FRAMING THEORY

Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman

Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208; email: dchong@northwestern.edu; druckman@northwestern.edu

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2007. 10:103–26

doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

Conceptual Issues in Framing Theory:

A Systematic Examination of a Decade’s Literature

Porismita Borah

School of Journalism & Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53726, USA

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

Click to access Conceptual-Issues-in-Framing-Theory-A-Systematic-Examination-of-a-Decades-Literature.pdf

Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research:

A meta-paradigmatic perspective

Art Dewulf, Barbara Gray, Linda Putnam, Roy Lewicki,

Noelle Aarts, Rene Bouwen and Cees van Woerkum

Human Relations 2009

DOI: 10.1177/0018726708100356

Volume 62(2): 155–193

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37789783_Disentangling_Approaches_to_Framing_in_Conflict_and_Negotiation_Research_A_Meta-paradigmatic_Perspective

Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: Incorporating the human dimension

Brugnach, M.1; A. Dewulf 2; C. Pahl-Wostl 1 and T. Taillieu 3

1. Universität Osnabrück, Germany
2. Wageningen University, The Netherlands
3. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Contact author: Marcela Brugnach, mbrugnac@usf.uos.de

Social Learning and Water Resources Management

Author(s): Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Marc Craps, Art Dewulf, Erik Mostert, David Tabara and Tharsi Taillieu

Source: Ecology and Society , Dec 2007, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Dec 2007) Published by: Resilience Alliance Inc.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267868

AN OVERVIEW OF INTEGRAL ECOLOGY

A Comprehensive Approach to Today’s Complex Planetary Issues

Sean Esbjörn-Hargens Michael E. Zimmerman

The Variety of Integral Ecologies
Nature, Culture, and Knowledge in the Planetary Era

Sam Mickey – Editor
Sean Kelly – Editor
Adam Robbert – Editor
Mary Evelyn Tucker – Foreword by

SUNY series in Integral Theory
Release Date: June 2017
ISBN13: 978-1-4384-6527-2

Integrated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames

A. Dewulf*, M. Craps*, R. Bouwen*, T. Taillieu* and C. Pahl-Wostl**

*Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium (E-mail: art.dewulf@psy.kuleuven.ac.be, marc.craps@psy.kuleuven.ac.be,rene.bouwen@psy.kuleuven.ac.be, tharsi.taillieu@psy.kuleuven.ac.be)
**Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabru ̈ck, Albrechtstrasse 28, Osnabru ̈ck, Germany (E-mail: pahl@usf.uni-osnabrueck.de)

Integral Ecology

UNITING MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON THE NATURAL WORLD

By SEAN ESBJORN-HARGENS, PH.D. and MICHAEL E. ZIMMERMAN, PH.D.
Foreword by Marc Bekoff

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/46964/integral-ecology-by-sean-esbjorn-hargens-phd-and-michael-e-zimmerman-phd-foreword-by-marc-bekoff/

Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World

Sean Esbjörn-Hargens and Ken Wilber

March 25, 2009

Governance Capabilities for Dealing Wisely With Wicked Problems

Catrien J. A. M. Termeer1, Art Dewulf1, Gerard Breeman1, and Sabina J. Stiller1

Administration & Society XX(X) 1–31 © 2012

DOI: 10.1177/0095399712469195

More is not always better: Coping with ambiguity in natural resources management

M. Brugnach a, b, *, A. Dewulf c, H.J. Henriksen d, P. van der Keur d

a Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands
b Institute for Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, Germany c Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands d Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Denmark

Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1e7

Issue Framing in Conversations for Change: Discursive Interaction Strategies for “Doing Differences”

Art Dewulf1 and René Bouwen2

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X) 1–26 2012

DOI: 10.1177/0021886312438858

Contrasting frames in policy debates on climate change adaptation

Art Dewulf∗

Defining Uncertainty A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support

W.E. WALKER1, P. HARREMO€EES2, J. ROTMANS3, J.P. VAN DER SLUIJS5, M.B.A. VAN ASSELT4,

P. JANSSEN6 AND M.P. KRAYER VON KRAUSS2

Integrated Assessment 1389-5176/03/0000-000

2003

The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back In

Baldwin Van Gorp

Department of Communication Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6500 HC Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

What are Problem Structuring Methods?

What are Problem Structuring Methods?

Source: PROBLEM STRUCTURING IN PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS

Problem structuring methods provide a methodological complement to theories of policy design. Arguably, structuring a problem is a prerequisite of designing solutions for that problem.4 In this context, problem structuring methods are metamethods. They are “about” and “come before” processes of policy design and other forms of problem solving.

Source: Strategic Development: Methods and Models

Key Terms

  • PSM
  • Soft OR
  • Hard OR
  • Unstructured Problems
  • Systems
  • System Sciences
  • SODA Strategic Options Development and Analysis
  • SSM Soft Systems Methodology
  • SCA Strategic Choice Approach
  • Robustness Analysis
  • Drama Theory
  • Interactive Planning
  • Scenario Planning
  • Critical Systems Heuristics
  • SWOT
  • Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing
  • Viable Systems Model VSM
  • System Dynamics
  • Decision Conferencing
  • Multi-methodology
  • John Mingers
  • Jonathan Rosenhead
  • John Morecroft
  • MC Jackson
  • Operational Research
  • Problem Structuring Methods PSM
  • Stafford Beer
  • Robert Dyson
  • Jay Forrester
  • Russell Ackoff
  • Robert Flood
  • Peter Checkland
  • Group Model Building
  • Behaviour Operational Research
  • Community Operations Research
  • Ill-structured versus Well-structured Problems
  • Wicked Versus Tame Problems
  • Ill-Defined versus Well-Defined Problems
  • Nigel Howard
  • Metagames
  • Hypergames

Problem Structuring Methods

Source: Past, present and future of problem structuring methods

The problematic situations for which PSMs aim to provide analytic assistance are characterized by

  • Multiple actors,
  • Differing perspectives, 
  • Partially conflicting interests,  
  • Significant intangibles,
  • Perplexing uncertainties.

The relative salience of these factors will differ between situations (and different methods are selective in the emphasis given to them). However, in all cases there is a meta-characteristic, that of complexity, arising out of the need to comprehend a tangle of issues without being able to start from a presumed consensual formulation. For an introduction to PSMs, see Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001

Source: Problem structuring methods in action

Strategic options development and analysis (SODA) is a general problem identification method that uses cognitive mapping as a modelling device for eliciting and recording individuals’ views of a problem situation. The merged individual cognitive maps (or a joint map developed within a workshop session) provide the framework for group discussions, and a facilitator guides participants towards commitment to a portfolio of actions.

Soft systems methodology (SSM) is a general method for system redesign. Participants build ideal-type conceptual models (CMs), one for each relevant world view. They compare them with perceptions of the existing system in order to generate debate about what changes are culturally feasible and systemically desirable. 

Strategic choice approach (SCA) is a planning approach centered on managing uncertainty in strategic situations. Facilitators assist participants to model the interconnectedness of decision areas. Interactive comparison of alternative decision schemes helps them to bring key uncertainties to the surface. On this basis the group identifies priority areas for partial commitment, and designs explorations and contingency plans.

Robustness analysis is an approach that focuses on maintaining useful flexibility under uncertainty. In an interactive process, participants and analysts assess both the compatibility of alternative initial commitments with possible future configurations of the system being planned for, and the performance of each configuration in feasible future environments. This enables them to compare the flexibility maintained by alternative initial commitments. 

Drama theory draws on two earlier approaches, meta games and hyper games. It is an interactive method of analysing co-operation and conflict among multiple actors. A model is built from perceptions of the options available to the various actors, and how they are rated. Drama theory looks for the “dilemmas” presented to the actors within this model of the situation. Each dilemma is a change point, tending to cause an actor to feel specific emotions and to produce rational arguments by which the model itself is redefined. When and only when such successive redefinitions have eliminated all dilemmas is the actors’ joint problem fully resolved. Analysts commonly work with one of the parties, helping it to be more effective in the rational-emotional process of dramatic resolution. (Descriptions based substantially on Rosenhead, 1996.)

Given the ill-defined location of the PSM/non- PSM boundary, there are a number of other methods with some currency that have at least certain family resemblances. These include critical systems heuristics (CSH) (Ulrich, 2000), interactive planning (Ackoff, 1981), and strategic assumption surfacing and testing (Mason and Mitroff, 1981). Other related methods which feature in this special issue are SWOT (Weihrich, 1998), scenario planning (Schoemaker, 1998), and the socio-technical systems approach (Trist and Murray, 1993). Those which are particularly close to the spirit of PSMs in at least some of their modes of use, and therefore thought to merit inclusion in Rosenhead and Mingers (2001), are the following:

Viable systems model (VSM) is a generic model of a viable organization based on cybernetic principles. It specifies five notional systems that should exist within an organization in some form––operations, co-ordination, control, intelligence, and policy, together with the appropriate control and communicational relationships. Although it was developed with a prescriptive intent, it can also be used as part of a debate about problems of organizational design and redesign (Harnden, 1990). 

System dynamics(SD) is a way of modelling peoples’ perceptions of real-world systems based especially on causal relationships and feedback. It was developed as a traditional simulation tool but can be used, especially in combination with influence diagrams (causal–loop diagrams), as a way of facilitating group discussion (Lane, 2000; Vennix, 1996).

Decision conferencing is a variant of the more widely known “decision analysis”. Like the latter, it builds models to support choice between decision alternatives in cases where the consequences may be multidimensional; and where there may be uncertainty about future events which affect those consequences. What distinguishes decision conferencing is that it operates in workshop mode, with one or more facilitators eliciting from the group of participants both the structure of the model, and the probabilities and utilities to be included in it. The aim is cast, not as the identification of an objectively best solution, but as the achievement of shared understanding, the development of a sense of common purpose, and the generation of a commitment to action (Phillips, 1989; Watson and Buede, 1987).

There are a number of texts which present a different selection of “softer” methods than do Rosenhead and Mingers. These include Flood and Jackson (1991), who concentrate on systems-based methods, Dyson and O’Brien (1998) who consider a range of hard and soft approaches in the area of strategy formulation; and Sorensen and Vidal (1999) who make a wide range of methods accessible to a Scandinavian readership. There is clearly an extensive repertoire of methods available. In fact it is common to combine together a number of PSMs, or PSMs together with more traditional methods, in a single intervention––a practice known as multimethodology (Mingers and Gill, 1997). So the range of methodological choice is wider even than a simple listing of methods might suggest.

Source: Are project managers ready for the 21th challenges? A review of problem structuring methods for decision support

Benefits of Problem Structuring Methods

Source: Are project managers ready for the 21th challenges? A review of problem structuring methods for decision support

My Related Posts

Systems and Organizational Cybernetics

Micro Motives, Macro Behavior: Agent Based Modeling in Economics

Production and Distribution Planning : Strategic, Global, and Integrated

Drama Theory: Choices, Conflicts and Dilemmas

Drama Theory: Acting Strategically

Quantitative Models for Closed Loop Supply Chain and Reverse Logistics

Hierarchical Planning: Integration of Strategy, Planning, Scheduling, and Execution

Stock Flow Consistent Input Output Models (SFCIO)

Stock Flow Consistent Models for Ecological Economics

Gantt Chart Simulation for Stock Flow Consistent Production Schedules

Shell Oil’s Scenarios: Strategic Foresight and Scenario Planning for the Future

Water | Food | Energy | Nexus: Mega Trends and Scenarios for the Future

Global Trends, Scenarios, and Futures: For Foresight and Strategic Management

HP’s Megatrends

Global Flow of Funds: Statistical Data Matrix across National Boundaries

Credit Chains and Production Networks

Supply Chain Finance (SCF) / Financial Supply Chain Management (F-SCM)

Financial Social Accounting Matrix

Morris Copeland and Flow of Funds accounts

Systems Biology: Biological Networks, Network Motifs, Switches and Oscillators

Oscillations and Amplifications in Demand-Supply Network Chains

Portfolio Planning Models for Corporate Strategic Planning

Cyber-Semiotics: Why Information is not enough

Truth, Beauty, and Goodness: Integral Theory of Ken Wilber

Key Sources of Research

Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory.

White, L., Burger, K., & Yearworth, M. (2016).

European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 983-1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.044

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/understanding-behaviour-in-problem-structuring-methods-interventi

“Is Value Focused Thinking a Problem Structuring Method or Soft OR or what?”

Keisler, Jeffrey,

(2012). 

Management Science and Information Systems Faculty Publication Series. Paper 42.


http://scholarworks.umb.edu/msis_faculty_pubs/42

Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict

John Mingers, Jonathan Rosenhead

2001 Book Second ed.

The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review

https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-characteristics-of-problem-structuring-methods-a-literature-review(e4bbf605-6df1-4a33-853c-2bc17dc18a8e).html

Problem structuring methods in action

John Mingers a,*, Jonathan Rosenhead b

a Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK 

b London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK

European Journal of Operational Research 152 (2004) 530–554

Click to access Problem%20structuring%20methods%20in%20action.pdf

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Problem-structuring-methods-in-action-Mingers-Rosenhead/752fdb5dfaddbc0a7946f281a9c454d6f4203542

Click to access Problem%20structuring%20methods%20in%20action.pdf

Introduction to the Special Issue: Teaching Soft O.R., Problem Structuring Methods, and Multimethodology.

John Mingers, Jonathan Rosenhead, (2011)

INFORMS Transactions on Education 12(1):1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ited.1110.0073

Click to access Mingers-Rosenberg-PSM-SoftOR.pdf

https://pubsonline.informs.org/toc/ited/12/1

Problem Structuring Methods, 1950s-1989: An Atlas of the Journal Literature

Georgiou, Ion and Heck, Joaquim,

(June 26, 2017).

Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3077648 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3077648

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3077648

“An Investigation on the Effectiveness of a Problem Structuring Method in a GroupDecision-Making Process”

Thaviphoke, Ying.

(2020). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, Engineering Management, Old Dominion University,

DOI: 10.25777/cx7x-z403
https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/emse_etds/182

What’s the Problem? An Introduction to Problem Structuring Methods

Jonathan Rosenhead

Published Online:1 Dec 1996

https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.26.6.117

PROBLEM STRUCTURING IN PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS

William N. Dunn
Graduate School of Public and International Affairs University of Pittsburgh

Past, present and future of problem structuring methods

J Rosenhead

London School of Economics, London, UK

Journal of the Operational Research Society (2006), 1–7

Framing and Reframing as a Creative Problem Structuring Aid

Victoria J Mabin, and John Davies Management Group Victoria University of Wellington PO Box 600 Wellington
email: vicky.mabin@vuw.ac.nz

Tel +4-495 5140
email: john.davies@vuw.ac.nz Tel + 4-471 5382
Fax + 4-471 2200

Reassessing the scope of OR practice: the influences of problem structuring methods and the analytics movement

Ranyard, J.C., Fildes, R. and Hun, T-I (2014).

(LUMS Working Paper 2014:8).

Lancaster University: The Department of Management Science.

Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation


G Montibeller1∗, V Belton2, F Ackermann2 and L Ensslin3

1London School of Economics, London, UK; 2University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK; and 3Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Floriano ́polis, Brazil

Journal of the Operational Research Society (2008) 59, 575–589

Special issue on problem structuring research and practice

Fran Ackermann • L. Alberto Franco • Etie ̈nne Rouwette • Leroy White

EURO J Decis Process (2014) 2:165–172 DOI 10.1007/s40070-014-0037-6

Soft OR Comes of Age – But Not Everywhere!

Mingers, John (2011)

ISSN 0305-0483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2011.01.005

Omega, 39 (6). pp. 729-741

An Investigation on the Effectiveness of a Problem Structuring Method in a Group Decision-Making Process

Ying Thaviphoke
Old Dominion University, ythav001@odu.edu

2020

OR competences: the demands of problem structuring methods

Richard John Ormerod

EURO J Decis Process (2014) 2:313–340

DOI 10.1007/s40070-013-0021-6

Hard OR, Soft OR, Problem Structuring Methods, Critical Systems Thinking: A Primer

Hans G. Daellenbach

Department of Management University of Canterbury Christchurch, NZ

h.daellenbach@mang.canterbury.ac.nz

Are project managers ready for the 21th challenges? A review of problem structuring methods for decision support

José Ramón San Cristóbal Mateo

Emma Diaz Ruiz de Navamuel

María Antonia González Villa

https://repositorio.unican.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10902/13669/ijispm-050203.pdf?sequence=1

Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods

Gerald Midgley  Robert Y. Cavana  John Brocklesby , Jeff L. Foote  David R.R. Wood , Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll 

European Journal of Operational Research 229 (2013) 143–154

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221713000945

Problem structuring methods

Jonathan Rosenhead1

Chapter in book

(1) The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, England

Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-0611-X_806

Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science

2001 Edition | Editors: Saul I. Gass, Carl M. Harris

Beyond Problem Structuring Methods: Reinventing the Future of OR/MS

Author(s): M. C. Jackson

Source: The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, No. 7, Special Issue: Problem Structuring Methods (Jul., 2006), pp. 868-878

Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals on behalf of the Operational Research Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4102274

Strategic Development: Methods and Models

Robert G. Dyson (Editor)Frances A. O’Brien (Editor)

ISBN: 978-0-471-97495-6 

May 1998 346 Pages

https://www.wiley.com/en-al/Strategic+Development:+Methods+and+Models-p-9780471974956

Group Model Building:
Problem Structuring, Policy Simulation and Decision Support

David F. Andersen, University at Albany
Jac A.M. Vennix, Radboud University Nijmegen George P. Richardson, University at Albany Etiënne A.J.A. Rouwette, Radboud University Nijmegen

Reassessing the Scope of OR Practice: the Influences of Problem Structuring Methods and the Analytics Movement

J. C. Ranyard, R. Fildes* and Tun-I Hu

The Department of Management Science Lancaster University Management School Lancaster LA1 4YX
UK

Frames, Communication, and Public Policymaking

Frames, Communication, and Public Policymaking

My previous post was on introducing frames, framing and reframing. I focused on use of frames in areas of

  • Media
  • Communication
  • Sociology and Social Movements
  • Political Science
  • International Relations

Frames and Framing are used in two other areas

  • Frame Effects in Decision Making /Kahneman and Tversky
  • Frame Analysis in Public Policy Making / David Schon and Martin Rein

This post is focused on Frame Analysis as used in public policy making.

Frames and Frame Analysis

Source: From Policy “Frames” to “Framing”: Theorizing a More Dynamic, Political Approach.

The concept of frames or framing, especially cast as “frame analysis,” has an established history in public policy studies, building largely on the work of Donald Schön and Martin Rein. It is an important analytic “tool” for those seeking to understand, for instance, issues in the mismatch between administrators’ implementation of legislated policies and policy intent. Originally coined elsewhere (Bateson, 1955/1972a), the concept had, by the 1990s, been taken up in a wide range of academic disciplines. These included, in addition to public policy analysis (e.g., Rein, 1983a, 1983b; Rein & Schön, 1977; Schön, 1979/1993; Schön & Rein 1994, 1996), artificial intelligence and psychology (e.g., Minsky, 1975; Schank & Abelson, 1977; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981), linguistics (e.g., Fillmore, 1982; Lakoff, 1987; Tannen, 1979; see Cienki, 2007), social movement studies (e.g., Gamson, 1992; Morris & Mueller, 1992; Snow & Benford, 1988; Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986; for an overview, see Benford & Snow, 2000), communication studies (e.g., D’Angelo, 2002; de Vreese, 2012; Entman, 1993; for a critical overview, see Vliegenthart & van Zoonen, 2011), dispute resolution (e.g., Dewulf et al., 2009; Putnam & Holmer, 1992), and even music (Cone, 1968). Yet as the Rein–Schön policy analytic approach to framing is, today, less well known than its version in the social movement literature, public policy and administration scholars might be more likely to turn to the latter than the former in seeking to explain frame-related issues. Given what we see as the greater suitability of their approach for analyzing policy processes, we think the ideas they developed worth revisiting and extending in ways that enhance their applicability to dynamic, power-sensitive policy and administrative issues.

Although Schön also explored the subject in his own scholarship on metaphors (1979/1993) and reflective practice (e.g., 1983, 1987)—each of which might be understood, at least in part, as engaging aspects of framing—its policy applications are most fully elaborated in his collaborative work with Rein. Where Rein used “frame-reflective analysis” interchangeably with “value- critical analysis” (on this point, see Schmidt, 2006/2013), together they began focusing on frame analysis as “a methodology for problem setting” (Rein & Schön, 1977, p. 237). Later, they added its utility for investigating the possible resolution of policy controversies (Rein & Schön, 1986, 1993), and in particular those they saw as “stubborn” (Rein & Schön, 1991) or “intractable” (Rein & Schön, 1996; see also Rein, 1983a, 1983b; Schön, 1963/2001): prolonged debates on issues marked by uncertainties and ambiguities that were “highly resistant to resolution by appeal to evidence, research, or reasoned argument” (Schön & Rein, 1994, p. xi).1 Their collaboration ultimately led to the co-authored Frame Reflection (Schön & Rein, 1994).

Schön and Rein’s approach to frame analysis has been generative for many policy scholars across a range of topics, from waste management to immigrant integration, civil aviation to bovine TB (see, for example, Dudley, 1999; Grant, 2009; Hajer & Laws 2006; Hisschemöller & Hoppe, 1996; Kaufman & Smith, 1999; Laws & Rein, 2003; Rasmussen, 2011; Schmidt, 2006/2013; Scholten & Van Nispen, 2008; Sørensen, 2006; van Eeten, 2001; Yanow, 2009). Still, for all its utility, their approach warrants further development to realize its policy analytic potential in the context of intractable policy controversies, in particular with respect to the promise it holds out of a dynamic, process-oriented engagement that is politically nuanced and power-sensitive. In this context, it would be particularly suitable for understanding interactions not only in formal political arenas but also in governance networks (Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004) and in the more mundane encounters between street-level bureaucrats and their clients (Lipsky, 1980; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003; Vinzant & Crothers, 1996). In extending their approach, we draw on various ideas we find in Schön’s earlier solo work (1963/2001, 1971), and we join Schön and Rein’s treatment of policy frame analysis with ideas deriving from category and narrative analyses, two related analytic modes.

To make the potential contributions of this policy analytic focus on framing clearer, we differentiate it from approaches that focus on frames. In our reading of these approaches, social movement theorizing chief among them, “frames” are often treated as objects people possess in their heads and develop for explicitly strategic purposes. By contrast, the policy analytic approach we engage here shifts the focus to “framing,” the interactive, intersubjective processes through which frames are constructed (cf. Weick, 1979).2 This distinction is more significant than mere differences between parts of speech: “frame” signifies a more definitional, static, and potentially taxonomizing approach to the subject; “framing” offers a more dynamic and, in our view, potentially politically aware engagement. Although the two treatments are not necessarily mutually exclusive,3 each brings different features of the processes conceptualized as frames/framing to light. To be sure, Schön and Rein’s work has aspects of both: Their case studies (e.g., of home- lessness; 1994) trace policy developments over time, listing policy programs adopted in specific cases whose names are the equivalent of different frames on the policy problem, and the policy settings of those cases introduce some elements of political processes. Our argument develops the political character of policy processes more fully, thereby enabling a policy-focused frame theorizing and analysis that flesh out the more dynamic and politically sensitive aspects of their work. This also enables us to address some of the issues raised by social movement and dispute resolution studies’ treatments of frames (e.g., Benford, 1997; Dewulf et al., 2009).

Knowing something of the conceptual history out of which frame analysis emerged clarifies what is at stake in these different approaches. We begin there and with Schön’s and Rein’s basic ideas before turning to the further development of a policy analytic approach.

Key Terms

  • Frame Analysis
  • Frame Reflection
  • Frames
  • Framing
  • Reframing
  • Media Frames
  • Communication
  • Policy making
  • Action Learning
  • Learning in Action
  • Reflection in Action
  • Organizational Learning
  • Double Loop Learning
  • Gregory Bateson
  • Erving Goffman
  • Chris Argyris
  • Martin Rein
  • Donald Schon
  • Reflective Practitioner
  • Interpretative Frames
  • Cognitive Frames
  • Interactional Frames
  • Contextual Frames
  • Sensemaking
  • Sensegiving
  • Priming
  • Agenda-setting
  • Persuasion
  • Schemas
  • Scripts. 
  • Levels of Analysis
  • Micro, Meso, Macro
  • Deep Frames
  • Issue Defining Frames
  • Surface Messages
  • Frame Alignment
  • Frame Consonance
  • Frame Discordance
  • Contested Frames

Categories of Frames: Policy Frames Codebook

Source: Identifying Media Frames and Frame Dynamics Within and Across Policy Issues

Our Policy Frames Codebook is intended to provide the best of both worlds: a general system for categorizing frames across policy issues designed so that it can also be specialized in issue-specific ways. The codebook contains 14 categories of frame “dimensions” (plus an “other” category) that are intended to be applicable to any policy issue (abortion, immigration, foreign aid, etc.) and in any communication context (news stories, Twitter, party manifestos, legislative debates, etc.). The dimensions are listed below.

  1. Economic frames: The costs, benefits, or monetary/financial implications of the issue (to an individual, family, community or to the economy as a whole).
  2. Capacity and resources frames: The lack of or availability of physical, geographical, spatial, human, and financial resources, or the capacity of existing systems and resources to implement or carry out policy goals.
  3. Morality frames: Any perspective—or policy objective or action (including proposed action)— that is compelled by religious doctrine or interpretation, duty, honor, righteousness or any other sense of ethics or social responsibility.
  4. Fairness and equality frames: Equality or inequality with which laws, punishment, rewards, and resources are applied or distributed among individuals or groups. Also the balance between the rights or interests of one individual or group compared to another individual or group.
  5. Constitutionality and jurisprudence frames: The constraints imposed on or freedoms granted to individuals, government, and corporations via the Constitution, Bill of Rights and other amendments, or judicial interpretation. This deals specifically with the authority of government to regulate, and the authority of individuals/corporations to act independently of government.
  6. Policy prescription and evaluation: Particular policies proposed for addressing an identified problem, and figuring out if certain policies will work, or if existing policies are effective.
  7. Law and order, crime and justice frames: Specific policies in practice and their enforcement, incentives, and implications. Includes stories about enforcement and interpretation of laws by individuals and law enforcement, breaking laws, loopholes, fines, sentencing and punishment. Increases or reductions in crime.
  8. Security and defense frames: Security, threats to security, and protection of one’s person, family, in-group, nation, etc. Generally an action or a call to action that can be taken to protect the welfare of a person, group, nation sometimes from a not yet manifested threat.
  1. Health and safety frames: Healthcare access and effectiveness, illness, disease, sanitation, obesity, mental health effects, prevention of or perpetuation of gun violence, infrastructure and building safety.
  2. Quality of life frames: The effects of a policy on individuals’ wealth, mobility, access to resources, happiness, social structures, ease of day-to-day routines, quality of community life, etc.
  3. Cultural identity frames: The social norms, trends, values and customs constituting culture(s), as they relate to a specific policy issue
  4. Public opinion frames: References to general social attitudes, polling and demographic information, as well as implied or actual consequences of diverging from or getting ahead of public opinion or polls.
  5. Political frames: Any political considerations surrounding an issue. Issue actions or efforts or stances that are political, such as partisan filibusters, lobbyist involvement, bipartisan efforts, deal-making and vote trading, appealing to one’s base, mentions of political maneuvering. Explicit statements that a policy issue is good or bad for a particular political party.
  6. External regulation and reputation frames: The United States’ external relations with another nation; the external relations of one state with another; or relations between groups. This includes trade agreements and outcomes, comparisons of policy outcomes or desired policy outcomes.
  7. Other frames: Any frames that do not fit into the above categories.

Researchers may choose to employ only these categories as listed here, or they could also nest issue-specific frames (or arguments) within each category. For example, in the case of capital punishment, the “innocence” frame would be a frame specific to that issue but categorized under the dimension of “fairness and equality.” In this way, scholars can apply the Policy Frames Codebook to new content analysis projects or take existing datasets that employed issue-specific frames and categorize those frames into the dimensions provided here.

We developed these categories through a mix of inductive and deductive methods. We began by brainstorming—amongst our team and several colleagues—categories that we imagined would cross- cut most, if not all, policy issues while also examining a random sampling of newspaper stories and blog posts to see which frames appeared and how we might categorize them. Then we tried applying our preliminary list of frame categories to a random sample of front-page newspaper stories covering a wide range of issues, and revised our categorization scheme accordingly. Next, we shopped our list around, sending it to additional colleagues and presenting it at an international conference (the 20th International Conference of Europeanists), again revising our schema based on this feedback. Finally, we did another round of test coding. Throughout this testing process, we developed and revised not only our list of categories but also a codebook that defines and gives examples for each category.

Framing: a Fractured Paradigm

Source: Putting Framing in Perspective: A Review of Framing and Frame Analysis across the Management and Organizational Literature

Framing and frames form an important cornerstone of many areas of management and organizational research – even if, at times, the interest in related constructs (such as schemas or categories) has seemingly had the upper hand. In one sense, our paper has been an attempt to take stock of the current literature while further advancing and invigorating research into the role of framing across the micro, meso and macro levels of analysis in management and organization studies. In part, this motivation has been driven by a recognition of the analytical strength and versatility of the construct, as evidenced by the various research streams that it has spawned within management, and indeed across the social sciences. At the same time, this vast influence across areas of research has perhaps also come at a price. It has led to a “fractured paradigm” (Entman, 1993), with researchers typically adopting a singular and more narrow focus on the construct at a particular level of analysis.

A general consequence of bracketing the broader construct in this way is that it has deflected attention away from processes of framing as meaning construction to a focus on frames as stable symbols or thoughts, with many studies setting out to “name” frames and explore how they prime certain thoughts and behaviours (e.g., Benford, 1997; Schneiberg & Clemens, 2006). The focus, in other words, is on the effects of cognitive frames, once these are established, in structuring expectations and cueing behavioural responses. This is useful for explaining how default frames may impinge on actors, and may script their behaviour, but does not account for how such frames of reference emerge in the first place. The bracketing of the construct may thus have blinded researchers to the active struggles and negotiations over meaning that take place before a frame might emerge, and before the meaning of an organized group or indeed an entire institutional field might contract around a frame.

We point in the paper to specific research opportunities and methods that enable further research to progress beyond “naming frames”, and explore framing as dynamic processes of meaning construction within and across groups and organizations. To a large extent, these opportunities will also involve research designs and methods that make stronger connections across levels of analysis, and consider the reciprocal influence between language, cognition, and culture. The methods that we have highlighted, ranging from interaction analysis to semantic-network analysis, are adept at this and allow for richer and more processual analyses of framing. Indeed, we hope that these methods will benefit researchers in realizing the highlighted opportunities and in advancing research on framing across a variety of organizational and institutional contexts.

Framing – Cognitive and Interactional

Source: Framing mechanisms: the interpretive policy entrepreneur’s toolbox

The framing literature is divided into two streams – a cognitive and an interactional type. Cognitive framing entails the individual understanding of a (policy) situation by assigning meaning to elements and binding them together in a coherent story (Scholten and Van Nispen 2008; Stone 2002; Van Hulst and Yanow 2014; Hawkins and Holden 2013). The interactional framing literature engages with the interactive effects of frames. Part of that literature focuses on the instrumental use of framing for ‘the rhetorical functions of persuasion, justification and symbolic display’ (Schön and Rein 1994, 32, cf.; Entman 1993; Gallo-Cruz 2012). However, the interactional framing literature, we use here, revolves around the function of actors making meaning together in interaction with each other (Dewulf and Bouwen 2012; Dodge 2015). Specifically, we follow Dewulf and Bouwen (2012, 169), who define framing as ‘the dynamic enactment and alignment of meaning in ongoing interactions’. In this understanding, framing is finding a consensus among actors over the meaning of a (policy) situation instead of doing so individually. We understand the interactional framing mechanisms Dewulf and Bouwen (2012) propose as processes initiated by an actor for meaning-making, and may also be used consciously in an instrumental way.

Figure 2. Flow chart of Interpretive Policy Entrepreneur characteristics.

Figure 3. Framing interaction mechanisms (adapted from Dewulf and Bouwen 2012).

Frame Constructs by Level of Analysis

Source: PUTTING FRAMING IN PERSPECTIVE: A REVIEW OF FRAMING AND FRAME ANALYSIS ACROSS THE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL LITERATURE

Source: PUTTING FRAMING IN PERSPECTIVE: A REVIEW OF FRAMING AND FRAME ANALYSIS ACROSS THE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL LITERATURE

Source: Integrated Framing: A Micro to Macro Case for The Landscape

Narratives, Frames, and Settings

Source: Narrative Frames and Settings in Policy Narratives

A unique aspect of the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) is that it holds in the balance a social construction ontology with an objective epistemology. According to the NPF, policy realities are socially constructed through a particular perspective in a narrative, and our understanding of how these narratives operate in the policy space can be measured empirically through narrative elements and strategies (Shanahan, Jones, McBeth, and Radaelli, 2017). The NPF contends that empirically understanding the social construction of policy realities sheds light on enduring policy process questions such as why policy arenas remain intractable, how coalition learning and coordination occurs, and, ultimately, how and under what conditions policies change.

To address these broad research inquiries, much of the previous NPF research has focused on singular narrative elements such as characters (e.g., Weible, Olofsson, Costie, Katz, and Heikkila, 2016) and plot (e.g., Shanahan, Jones, McBeth, and Lane, 2013) as well as the narrative strategies of causal mechanism (e.g., Shanahan, Adams, Jones, and McBeth, 2014), distribution of costs and benefits (e.g., McBeth, Shanahan, Arnell, and Hathaway, 2007) and policy beliefs (Shanahan, Jones, and McBeth, 2011). Importantly, these elements and strategies have been generally studied as isolates; the next generation of NPF scholarship is beginning to explore how these narrative components array within the story, to proffer a particular policy perspective. What has not been studied or specified is the role of the narrative element settings in shaping the realities constructed in policy narratives, particularly with how characters array in different settings and how settings are situated within frames. By focusing on the nested nature of characters, settings, and frames, this study aims to reveal the dynamic workings of narratives in the policy terrain.

Why settings? Settings literally are the perspective given to an audience, whether a broad legalistic backdrop (e.g., a statute or Constitution), an aerial regional view (e.g., a map), or a ground-level geographic place (e.g., a landmark or house). Policy scholars (e.g., Weible 2014) often herald the import of context in understanding policy processes; we argue that a setting is the narrative interpretation of policy context. The policy context may include a particular geographic and/or political realm, but a narrative setting provides a particular viewpoint of this context. Such a backdrop delimits what the audience experiences of the narrative, whether the setting is micro (in a room) or macro (aerial view). In turn, settings come alive through the action of the characters. Thus, not only understanding and operationalizing settings, but also linking two narrative elements—characters and settings—are new steps in NPF research.

Why frames? How frames operate in or around narratives has been an issue over which NPF architects have puzzled. Functionally, frames and narratives have similar meaning-making cognitive processes (Jones and Song, 2014) and both shape people’s opinions about policy issues. Crow and Lawlor (2016) add that frames form the central organizing idea and turn facts into a story by selecting and emphasizing some attributes over others, as other framing and policy scholars note (e.g., Stone 2012; McCombs and Ghanem, 2001; Gamson and Madigliani, 1989; Druckman, 2001a). Thus, frames are important and shape the parameters in which narratives unfold. However, are there multiple narratives within one frame? Are divergent narratives housed within the same frame? Does one narrator use multiple frames? Answering these questions will help to shed light on the import of narratives in the context of frames.

My Related Posts

Frames, Framing and Reframing

Erving Goffman: Dramaturgy of Social Life

Key sources of Research

Perspectives on Framing

edited by Gideon Keren

2011

Identifying Media Frames and Frame Dynamics Within and Across Policy Issues

Amber E. Boydstun, University of California, Davis Justin H. Gross, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Philip Resnik, University of Maryland, College Park Noah A. Smith, Carnegie Mellon University

September 16, 2013

Tracking the Development of Media Frames within and across Policy Issues

Amber E. Boydstun, University of California, Davis∗

Dallas Card, Carnegie Mellon University

Justin H. Gross, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Philip Resnik, University of Maryland, College Park

Noah A. Smith, Carnegie Mellon University

August 19, 2014

https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/journal_contribution/Tracking_the_Development_of_Media_Frames_within_and_across_Policy_Issues/6473780

Levels of Information: A Framing Hierarchy

Shlomi Sher Department of Psychology University of California, San Diego

Craig R. M. McKenzie
Rady School of Management and Department of Psychology University of California, San Diego

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.176.189&rep=rep1&type=pdf

From Policy “Frames” to “Framing”: Theorizing a More Dynamic, Political Approach.

van Hulst, M. J., & Yanow, D. (2016).

The American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), 92–112.

The Framing Theory

Frames

IDEAS, POLITICS, AND PUBLIC POLICY

John L. Campbell
Department of Sociology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755,

e-mail: john.l.campbell@dartmouth.edu

Annu.Rev. Sociol. 2002. 28:21-38

doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.14111

Click to access Ideas,%20behavior%20and%20politics%20review.pdf

Framing Shale Gas for Policy-Making in Poland,

Aleksandra Lis & Piotr Stankiewicz (2016):

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,

DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2016.1143355

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1143355

https://repozytorium.umk.pl/bitstream/handle/item/3061/Framing%20Shale%20Gas%20for%20Policy%20Making%20in%20Poland.pdf?sequence=1

Donald Schon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Schön

Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies

By Donald A. Schon and Martin Rein

Summary written by Conflict Research Consortium Staff

https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/schon-frame

Contesting media frames and policy change

The influence of media frames of immigration policy-related incidents contesting dominant policy frames on changes in Dutch immigration policies

Rianne Dekker & Peter Scholten Department of Public Administration Erasmus University Rotterdam P.O. Box 1738
3000 DR Rotterdam r.dekker@fsw.eur.nl

Framing Resilience. From a Model-based Approach to a Management Process

Hanneke Duijnhoven

Martijn Neef

Procedia Economics and Finance
Volume 18, 2014, Pages 425-430

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567114009599

Neighborhood, City, or Region: Deconstructing Scale in Planning Frames

By Kate Lowe

Reframing Problematic Policies

Martin Rein

The Oxford Handbook of Political Science Edited by Robert E. Goodin

Print Publication Date: Jul 2011

Online Publication Date: Sep 2013

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0046

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456-e-046?print=pdf

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456-e-046

From Policy “Frames” to “Framing”

van Hulst, M.J.; Yanow, Dvora

The American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), 92–112

2016

Frame Analysis in Environmental Conflicts: The case of ethanol production in Brazil

Ester Galli

PhD Dissertation 2011

KTH – Royal Institute of Technology
School of Industrial Engineering and Management Division of Industrial Ecology
100 44 Stockholm

Donald Schon (Schön): learning, reflection and change

Chris Argyris: theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning

Reframing Policy Discourse

Martin Rein and Donald Schön

In book The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning

Edited by Frank Fischer and John Forester 1993

https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/1999/chapter-abstract/238545/Reframing-Policy-Discourse?redirectedFrom=fulltext

FRAMING CONTESTS: STRATEGY MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY

Sarah Kaplan
University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School 3620 Locust Walk, Suite 2019 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370 215-898-6377 slkaplan@wharton.upenn.edu

Frame Reflection: A Critical Review of US Military Approaches to Complex Situations

Ben Zweibelson, Major, US Army
Grant Martin, Lieutenant Colonel, US Army
Dr. Christopher Paparone, Colonel (retired), US Army

Identifying policy frames through semantic network analysis : an examination of nuclear energy policy across six countries

Shim, J, Park, C and Wilding, M

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077­015­9211­3

Click to access Semantic%20network%20for%20nuclear%20energy%20policy%20_%20Accepted%20version.pdf

Critical Frame Analysis:
A Comparative Methodology for the ‘Quality in Gender+ Equality Policies’ (QUING) project

Tamas Dombos

Click to access cps-working-paper-critical-frame-analysis-quing-2012.pdf

Integrated Framing: A Micro to Macro Case for The Landscape

*Filip Aggestam

Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life sciences, Austria

Submission: February 22, 2017; Published: March 21, 2017
*Corresponding author: Filip Aggestam, Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life sciences, Vienna,

Austria,

Volume 2 Issue 1 – March 2017
DOI: 10.19080/IJESNR.2017.02.555578

Int J Environ Sci Nat Res 

https://juniperpublishers.com/ijesnr/IJESNR.MS.ID.555578.php

Where is urban food policy in Switzerland? A frame analysis

Heidrun Moschitz

Department of Socio-economics, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Frick, Switzerland

INTERNATIONAL PLANNING STUDIES, 2018
VOL. 23, NO. 2, 180–194 https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2017.1389644

Framing Environmental Health Decision-Making: The Struggle over Cumulative Impacts Policy


by Devon C. Payne-Sturges 1,*,†, Thurka Sangaramoorthy 2,†OrcID and Helen Mittmann 2,3
1
Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, 2234 L SPH, 255 Valley Drive, College Park, MD 20742, USA
2
Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, 1111 Woods Hall, 4302 Chapel Lane, College Park, MD 20742, USA
3
Department of Health Policy and Management, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, 950 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(8), 3947; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18083947
Received: 14 March 2021 / Revised: 5 April 2021 / Accepted: 7 April 2021 / Published: 9 April 2021

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/3947/htm

Narrative and Frame Analysis: Disentangling and Refining Two Close Relatives by Means of a Large Infrastructural Technology Case

Ewert J. Aukes, Lotte E. Bontje & Jill H. Slinger

FQS

Volume 21, No. 2, Art. 28 – May 2020

https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/3422

https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/3422/4620

Framing in policy processes: A case study from hospital planning in the National Health Service in England, 

Jones, L., Exworthy, M.,

Social Science & Medicine (2014),

doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.046

Click to access Jones_Exworthy_Framing_policy_processes_Social_Science_Medicine_2014.pdf

The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back In

Baldwin Van Gorp

Department of Communication Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6500 HC Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

Framing Public Issues

Framework Institute

Framing mechanisms: the interpretive policy entrepreneur’s toolbox,

Ewert Aukes, Kris Lulofs & Hans Bressers (2017):

Critical Policy Studies,

DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2017.1314219

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2017.1314219

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19460171.2017.1314219

Chapter 23: Between representation and narration: analysing policy frames

Kathrin Braun

Handbook of Critical Policy Studies

Edited by Frank Fischer, Douglas Torgerson, Anna Durnová and Michael Orsini

Published in print: 18 Dec 2015

ISBN: 9781783472345e

ISBN: 9781783472352

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783472352

https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781783472345/9781783472345.00033.xml

Putting Framing in Perspective: A Review of Framing and Frame Analysis across the Management and Organizational Literature

Joep P. Cornelissen and Mirjam D. Werner

Published Online: 1 Jan 2014 

https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.875669

Academy of Management Annals VOL. 8, NO. 1

https://journals.aom.org/doi/full/10.5465/19416520.2014.875669

The sense of it all: Framing and narratives in sensegiving about a strategic change. 

Logemann, M., Piekkari, R., & Cornelissen, J. (2019).

Long Range Planning, 52(5), [101852]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.10.002

The Aesthetics of Story-telling as a Technology of the Plausible

Esther Eidinow (Nottingham) and Rafael Ramirez (Oxford)

From Interactions to Institutions: Microprocesses of Framing and Mechanisms for the Structuring of Institutional Fields

Barbara Gray

Jill M. Purdy

University of Washington Tacoma, jpurdy@uw.edu 

Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari

2015

https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1078&context=business_pub

Placing Strategy Discourse in Context: Sociomateriality, Sensemaking, and Power.

Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P., Mantere, S. and Vaara, E. (2014).

Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), pp. 175-201. doi: 10.1111/joms.12059

https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/8142/1/

Are Logics Enough? Framing as an Alternative Tool for Understanding Institutional Meaning Making

Jill Purdy

Milgard School of Business University of Washington Tacoma

Shaz Ansari

Cambridge Judge Business School University of Cambridge

Barbara Gray

Smeal College of Business The Pennsylvania State University

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/267326/Are+Logics+Enough+May+31+2017.pdf?sequence=3

Do Scale Frames Matter? Scale Frame Mismatches in the Decision Making Process of a “Mega Farm” in a Small Dutch Village

Maartje van Lieshout 1Art Dewulf 2Noelle Aarts 3,4 and Catrien Termeer 5


1PhD candidate Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University, 2Assistant professor Public Administration and Policy Group Wageningen University, 3Associate professor Communication Science Group Wageningen University, 4Professor Strategic Communication University of Amsterdam, 5Professor of Public Administration and Policy Wageningen University

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art38/

The End of Framing as we Know it . . . and the Future of Media Effects

Michael A. Cacciatore

Department of Advertising and Public Relations University of Georgia

Dietram A. Scheufele

Department of Life Sciences Communication University of Wisconsin and Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania

Shanto Iyengar

Department of Communication and Department of Political Science Stanford University

Mass Communication and Society, 19:7–23, 2016

Reframing as a Best Practice: The Priority of Process in Highly Adaptive Decision Making.

Dr. Gary Peters

March 24, 2008

Strategic Frame Analysis & Policy Making – Frameworks Institute

frameworksinstitute.org

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/35169177/strategic-frame-analysis-policy-making-frameworks-institute

The Art and Science of Framing an Issue

Chapter 16: Frames and framing in policymaking

Handbook on Policy, Process and Governing
Edited by H. K. Colebatch and Robert Hoppe

Published in print: 28 Dec 2018

ISBN: 9781784714864e

ISBN: 9781784714871

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784714871

Pages: c 528

https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781784714864/9781784714864.00024.xml

Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractrable Policy Controversies 

Paperback – June 29, 1995

by Donald A. Schon (Author)

Narrative Frames and Settings in Policy Narratives

Kate French (kfrench406@gmail.com) Elizabeth A. Shanahan (shanahan@montana.edu)* Eric D. Raile (eric.raile@monatan.edu) Jamie McEvoy (Jamie.mcevoy@montana.edu)

Montana State University

Heuristics for practitioners of policy design: Rules-of-thumb for structuring unstructured problems

Robert Hoppe

University of Twente, The Netherlands

Public Policy and Administration

0(0) 1–25 / 2017

Competitive Framing in Political Decision Making (2019)

in: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

Chong, Dennis

Analysis of Framing on the Public Policies from the View of Rein & Schoen Approach

Challoumis, Constantinos,

(November 17, 2018).

Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3286338 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3286338

Policy framing in the European Union

DOI:10.1080/13501760701314474

Falk Daviter

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248990447_Policy_framing_in_the_European_Union

Media in the Policy Process: Using Framing and Narratives to Understand Policy Influences

Deserai A. CrowAndrea Lawlor

First published: 07 September 2016

 https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12187

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ropr.12187

In the frame: how policy choices are shaped by the way ideas are presented 

11th May 2018

Policy Framing Analysis.

Daviter F. (2011)

In: Policy Framing in the European Union.

Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230343528_2

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9780230343528_2

Framing and the health policy process: a scoping review

Adam D Koon,*Benjamin Hawkins, and  Susannah H Mayhew

Health Policy Plan. 2016 Jul; 31(6): 801–816. 

Published online 2016 Feb 11. 

doi: 10.1093/heapol/czv128

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4916318/

Framing Shale Gas for Policy-Making in Poland

ALEKSANDRA LIS∗ & PIOTR STANKIEWICZ∗∗

∗Institute of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poznan ́, Poland
∗∗Institute for Sociology, Nicholas Copernicus University in Torun, Torun ́, Poland

Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. 

Rein, M., Schön, D.

Knowledge and Policy 9, 85–104 (1996).

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02832235

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02832235

The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, Volume 3

edited by Michael Moran, Martin Rein, Robert Edward Goodin, Robert E. Goodin, Professor of Urban Studies Martin Rein

Reframing Problematic Policies  

Martin Rein

The Oxford Handbook of Political Science

Edited by Robert E. Goodin

Print Publication Date: Jul 2011

Online Publication Date: Sep 2013

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0046

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456-e-046

Framing and Feedback

Constantinos Challoumis Κωνσταντίνος Χαλλουμής

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

Date Written: November 24, 2018

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3289905

Power to the Frame: Bringing Sociology Back to Frame Analysis

DOI:10.1177/0267323111404838

Authors:

Rens Vliegenthart

Liesbet van Zoonen

Frames, Framing and Reframing

Frames, Framing and Reframing

Sources: Locating Frames in the Discursive Universe

Scholars from a range of disciplines use the term ‘frame’ to mean a variety of disjointed and incompatible concepts. This paper examines a range of framing literature, from the writings of authors including Erving Goffman, Tuen van Dijk, Serge Moscovici, George Lakoff, Alan Johnson, William Gamson, David Snow, Robert Benford and Paolo Donati. Then it develops the theoretical case for defining frames as semi-structured elements of discourse which people use to make sense of information they encounter. Additionally, this paper demonstrates the need to include social system frames, which provide patterns for understanding social relations, among the presently acknowledged frame types. Frames develop in parallel with language, vary across cultures, and shape, but are distinct from other extra-linguistic discourse forms, including myths and ideologies.

Sources: Frames and Their Consequences

The concept of framing has been used to capture these diverse processes by scholars of the media (Gitlin 1980; Carragee and Woefs 2004), international relations (Bernstein 2002; Berejekian 1997), decisionmaking (Kahneman and Tversky 1986), policymaking (Schon and Rein 1994), and social movements.

Key Terms

  • Mental Models
  • World Views
  • Perspectives
  • Narratives
  • Retrospective Narrative
  • Multi Valent Logic
  • AnteNarrative
  • Law of Requisite Variety
  • Problem Structuring Methods
  • Drama
  • Scenarios
  • Dialectics
  • Meta Theater
  • Lenses
  • System in Focus
  • Focal Point
  • Boundaries
  • Inclusion and Exclusion
  • Frames
  • Framing
  • Reframing
  • Frames Rejected
  • Frames Accepted
  • Multi Perspectivism
  • Multiple Frames
  • Arguments
  • Biases and Prejudices
  • Counterfactuals (for past events)
  • What Ifs
  • Ideology
  • Mindset
  • Script
  • Preferences
  • Selection
  • Self Interest
  • Agenda
  • Why, What and How of a Narrative
  • Frame the Domain
  • Point of View
  • Field of Vision
  • Histories and Plots
  • Frame the issue

David Boje’s Dramatic Septet

David Boje expanded Kenneth Burke’s dramatic pentad to include Rhythms and Frames.

What are Frames?

Source: Critical Dramaturgical Analysis of Enron Antenarratives and Metatheatre

Source: Critical Dramaturgical Analysis of Enron Antenarratives and Metatheatre

Frames, Framing and Reframing

By
Sanda Kaufman
Michael Elliott
Deborah Shmueli

Original Publication September 2003

What Frames Are

Frames are cognitive shortcuts that people use to help make sense of complex information. Frames help us to interpret the world around us and represent that world to others. They help us organize complex phenomena into coherent, understandable categories. When we label a phenomenon, we give meaning to some aspects of what is observed, while discounting other aspects because they appear irrelevant or counter-intuitive. Thus, frames provide meaning through selective simplification, by filtering people’s perceptions and providing them with a field of vision for a problem.

Frames can significantly affect the intractability of a conflict by creating mutually incompatible interpretations of events. Because frames are built upon underlying structures of beliefs, values, and experiences, disputants often construct frames that differ in significant ways. A simple example is attitudes towards abortion in the US.  “Pro-life” advocates believe abortion is murder of an innocent, unborn child which has as much right to live as anyone else–thus they see the fetus as a person, and abortion as a willful act that murders a person. “Pro-choice” advocates, however, do not see the fetus as a “person” with human rights–not until it becomes “viable” outside the womb, at any rate.  Before then, they focus on the rights of the mother, asserting that she should have ultimate control and “choice” about her medical decisions and what happens to her body.

Frames often exist prior to conscious processing of information for decision-making[1] and affect subsequent individual decisions.[2] Thus, disputants are separated not only by differences in interests, beliefs, and values, but also in how they perceive and understand the world, both at a conscious and pre-conscious level.[3]  

Framing involves both the construction of interpretive frames and their representation to others. Disputants may use framing not only as an aid to interpreting events, but also to promote strategic advantage.[4] Framing can be useful for rationalizing self-interest, convincing a broader audience, building coalitions, or lending preferentiality to specific outcomes. As such, many factors affect how people frame a conflict, which, in turn, influences the direction the conflict takes.[5]

This essay explores the nature of frames and the framing process. It seeks to

  • clarify the basic concepts,
  • present an overview of what is known about frames and framing and their impact on conflict dynamics,
  • explore the forms of framing that are most significant to intractable conflicts,
  • examine the potential for reframing and frame changes as part of a process of reconciliation or conflict resolution, and
  • direct the reader to other web- and print-based resources that can provide more detail.
Definitions

Differing conceptual frames held by the parties involved in a dispute form the basis on which they act. Each party to a conflict has its own perception and understanding of their agenda, the relevance of various issues, their priorities, and the opportunities and risks involved with different choices. This assemblage of factors can be considered as a set of lenses, or filters, through which the various parties view the conflict, and is called the frame or conceptual frame.

In the English language, the word “frame” can be used both as a verb (to frame) or as a noun (a frame). As a noun, frame denotes the boundary within which the whole picture is displayed (similar to a frame placed around a picture or painting), and is used as a tool for interpreting and understanding the perceptions and underlying objectives of the various actors in the conflict. As a verb, framing refers to the creation of frames, either from a simple reading of the situation or through a deliberative, analytic, or strategic process.

The concept of frames has been developed as a tool for analysis in various fields, including psychology and sociology,[6] business management,[7] artificial intelligence,[8] decision-making,[9] negotiation,[10] and environmental conflict management.[11] Relevant to understanding intractable conflict are definitions given by such scholars as Minsky,[12] Tannen,[13] and Gray,[14] for whom frames are “cognitive structures held in memory and used to guide interpretation of new experience.” Furthermore, “parties rely on these mental structures to interpret or make sense of ongoing events.”[15] Frames are also defined as “collections of perceptions and thoughts that people use to define a situation, organize information, and determine what is important and what is not.”[16] We create frames to name a situation in which we find ourselves, to identify and interpret specific aspects that seem key to us in understanding the situation, and to communicate that interpretation to others.[17]

Why are Frames Important?

An essential element in conflict resolution is an understanding of how frames affect conflict development. In the context of a conflict, we create frames to help us understand why the conflict exists, what actions are important to the conflict, why the parties act as they do, and how we should act in response.[18] During the evolution of a conflict, frames act as sieves through which information is gathered and analyzed, positions are determined (including priorities, means, and solutions), and action plans developed. Depending on the context, frames may be used to conceptualize and interpret, or to manipulate and convince.

Putnam and Holmer[19] hold that framing and reframing are vital to the negotiationprocess and are tied to information processing, message patterns, linguistic cues, and socially constructed meanings. Knowing what types of frames are in use and how they are constructed allows one to draw conclusions about how they affect the development of a conflict, and can be used to influence it. Thus, analyzing the frames people use in a given conflict provides fresh insight and better understanding of the conflict dynamics and development. With such insight, and with the help of reframing, stakeholders may find new ways to reach agreements.

The Sources and Forms of Frames

Many factors influence frames and their formation. Intractable disputes are usually associated with a complex and reinforcing set of frames about oneself, the “others,” risks, what information should apply to the situation, and how decisions should be made. The frames of most importance to intractability usually include identity, characterization, power, conflict management/process, risk/information, and loss versus gain. Their forms and most common sources are as follows:

  • Identity frames: Disputants view themselves as having particular identities in the context of specific conflict situations.[20] These identities spring from the individuals’ self-conception and group affiliations. One might frame oneself as a Hutu or a Tutsi, a Muslim or a Christian, a man or a woman, or a Republican or Democrat.  The more central the challenge to one’s sense of self, the more oppositional one is likely to act. Typical responses to threats to identity include ignoring information and perspectives that threaten the core identity, reinforcing affiliations with like-minded individuals and groups, and negatively characterizing outsiders.
  • Characterization frames: Disputants view others in the conflict as having particular characteristics. Closely related to stereotyping, characterization frames may be either positive or negative. Parties to intractable conflicts often construct characterization frames for others that significantly differ from how the other parties view themselves. Such characterizations often undermine the others’ legitimacy, cast doubt on their motivations, or exploit their sensitivity. For example, many Americans characterize Al Queda as “terrorists,” yet they most certainly do not see themselves that way.  Rather, they see themselves as freedom-fighters, or jihadi warriors fighting for the protection of Islam.  Characterization frames are also often linked to identity frames, serving to strengthen one’s own identity while justifying your actions toward the other (e.g., for me to be a liberator, my opponent must be an oppressor).
  • Power frames: Because intractable conflicts are often imbedded in struggles to alter existing institutions or decision-making procedures, disputants’ conceptions of power and social control play a significant role in conflict dynamics. Power frames help the disputant determine not only which forms of power are legitimate (e.g., governmental, legal, civil disobedience) but also the forms of power that are likely to advance one’s own position (e.g., authority, resources, expertise, coalition-building, threat, voice). For instance, some people may see money as the best way to “buy influence,” while other people might rely more on technical expertise or personal charisma to sway people’s views..
  • Conflict management or process frames: Conflict over how best to manage or resolve differences is central to many intractable disputes. Depending on disputants’ identity, characterization of other disputants, perceived power, and perception of the available options, conflict frames may impel parties to seek very different remedies in response to common problems. These remedies may range from actions as disparate as violence, civil disobedience, litigation, and negotiation. Because of the wide complexity of possible actions and the uncertainty of their consequences, groups with shared interests and values may draw significantly different conclusions as to the best course of action within a particular dispute..One side, for instance, may be willing to sit down with a mediator and negotiate, while the other, thinking that it has the upper hand, may refuse negotiation, preferring litigation or violent action.
  • Risk and information frames: Intractable disputes often involve expectations about future events, in which the events are risky and the likelihood of the events occurring is uncertain.[21] In such conditions, disputants often construct risk and information frames that yield highly variable assessments about the level and extent of a particular risk. Additionally, these frames indicate to the disputant which sources of information are reliable and which are not. Risk and information frames depend not just on the disputant’s interests, but also on the disputant’s training, expertise, level of exposure to the risk, familiarity with the risk, potential for catastrophic impacts associated with the risk, and degree to which the risk is dreaded. People who are used to working and traveling in war-torn areas, for example, have a far different assessment of the risks of such activities than people who don’t do that (who thus are more likely to see the risk of doing so to be unacceptably high). Likewise, engineers who understand the technical aspects of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) are likely to access the risks of that process differently than “ordinary” people who live near the wells who have read popular media stories about the dangers of fracking–but also differently from the people working on the wells who simply want a job, and are much less worried about the impacts of their work than on the money it puts in their pockets.
  • Loss versus gain framesIn intractable disputes, it is common for most parties to the conflict to focus on threats of potential loss rather than on opportunities for gains. People tend to react differently to a proposed action when its expected consequences are framed in terms of losses as opposed to gains, where preventing a perceived loss is often more salient and more highly valued than capturing a commensurate gain.[22] Going back to the fracking example mentioned above, psychology tells us that most people are more likely to focus on the dangers of fracking (the potential loss of safe drinking water, clean habitat, and quiet) to be more significant than the gains that can be obtained from fracking–reduced reliance on foreign oil, and improved economy, and more jobs.

Many other types of frames can be constructed, but these six categories stand out as particularly applicable to intractable disputes.

Reframing

Within processes of reconciliationnegotiation, or joint problem solving, the explicit management of frames, and the framing process may lead to important shifts in both the frames themselves and in their impact on the conflict dynamics. This purposive management of frames is called reframing. Use of frame analysis and reframing processes have the following goals:

  • to clarify or “refresh” the perception of the issues in dispute (in order to promote more productive information exchange and listening to ideas not previously considered, and to expand the framework of discussion and explore means of action or solutions not yet attempted);
  • to sharpen the parties’ understanding of their interests and how the modes of action they have chosen serve those interests (in order to examine potential processes for managing conflict more productively and to reconsider patterns of relationships among stakeholders);
  • to identify those subjects which the involved parties view differently, even when the basis for the divergent frames are more fully understood (in order to identify opportunities for trade-offs based on clearly understood differences); and
  • to identify differences which cannot be bridged (in order to more fully appreciate conflict dynamics and to evaluate the potential for conflict reduction processes that do not violate these intractable differences, to determine the degree of importance attributed to these intractable differences in frames, and to seek ways to address them).

Thus, reframing, stemming from stakeholders’ understanding of their own as well as others’ expressed frames, may pave ways for resolving, or at least better managing, a dispute.

Framing diagram

Figure 1: Frames and their role in conflict development

Figure 1 illustrates the roles frames and framing play in the dynamics of conflict development. It demonstrates how a frame change (or reframing) may cause a shift in conflict development, towards conflict management and/or resolution. Types of frame categories are numerous and coined differently by researchers in various fields. The categories cited in this diagram are: substance (reframing that affects how one views the world today or potential future states of the world), process (reframing that affects how one interacts with others in the dispute), values (reframing that allows parties to clarify the relationship between values and interests for both themselves and for other parties), and phrasing (the language used by disputants to communicate with one other).

Frame Analysis and Reframing as Conflict Management Tools

Frame analysis can be used by both third party interveners and by individual stakeholders and conveners to better understand conflict dynamics. Frame analysis has been used both retrospectively (to understand past conflicts) and prospectively (as a tool for better managing an existing conflict). Retrospectively, it seeks to better understand conflict dynamics in order to glean lessons for the future. Prospectively, it advances consensus building in both the conflict assessments and intervention stages.

Analytic techniques for frame analysis include interviewing the various stakeholders to ascertain their perceptions and interpretations, feeding back to the parties the resulting analysis, and then exploring with the parties the meaning and impact of these frames on the conflict dynamics. Particularly within the framework of conflict assessments, [23] frame analysis and the resulting understanding of frames can help the stakeholders to better grasp the conflict, including the factors and contexts that can lead to changes within a frame or changes to the frames themselves. In this sense, framing becomes a formative analytic technique.

In intractable conflicts, frames are often quite stable over time, even when specific individuals move in and out of the conflict. This stability comes both because various frames held by an individual tend to be self reinforcing, and because frames are often shared within a community and therefore are socially reinforced through story-telling and shared perspectives. Yet research into intractable conflicts suggests that in at least some conflicts, frames can be altered over time through intentional interventions, and that the shift in frames helps to render disputes more tractable.[24]

At the same time, research shows that reframing is often not easy for parties. It requires taking on new perspectives, and often requires some degree of risk-taking on the part of the parties. As such, reframing works best when changes in the context of the dispute can be made, such that incentives to consider new perspectives increase, or in the context of careful and constructive dialogue, with a strong focus on improving communication and building trust.

A number of strategies and techniques exist in the use of dialogue to reframe intractable conflicts. These include:[25]

  • Reducing tension and promoting the de-escalation of hostility: by using techniques such as listening projects, study circles, and some forms of mediation which seek to reduce tension by creating forums that promote more effective communication around a set of limited objectives. The forums focus explicitly on improving communication and reducing escalatory cycles that are often associated with mutually-incompatible frames.
  • Perspective taking: techniques such as acknowledging critical identities, imaging of identities and characterizations, narrative forums, and listening circles allow disputants to understand the conflict and its dynamics from the perspective of other disputants. These approaches are particularly geared toward better understanding of identity and characterization frames, in order to see oneself more objectively and the other party in a more positive light. They seek to enable disputants to see the potential validity and credibility of other perspectives, and to examine the interplay between one’s own frames and those of other disputants.
  • Establishing a common ground as a basis for agreement: by using techniques such as visioning exercises and common-ground search processes which enable reframing around a smaller set of issues. Common ground processes are used in highly divisive issues (such as abortion and ethnic disputes) and seek to explore areas of agreement and possible joint action between parties who normally focus on their differences, in order to open up communication between the parties. Search processes seek to identify desired futures in order to shift the focus from a short-term perspective to a long-term one.
  • Enhancing the desirability of options and alternatives: Several approaches exist that may enhance the desirability of alternative options when presented to parties with divergent frames. For a disputant to examine options from the perspective of other parties, he or she must understand the other parties’ frames, and be able to view options from other perspectives. Third-party interveners are often helpful in this regard. In addition, seeking to reframe perceptions of losses as gains can enhance the openness and creativity of parties to a dispute.
Conclusion

Frames play a significant role in perpetuating intractable conflict. As lenses through which disputants interpret conflicts, frames limit the clarity of communication and the quality of information, as well as instigate escalatory processes. These frames, imbedded in personal, social, and institutional roles, are often quite stable over time, even through the ebb and flow of many dispute episodes. As such, they contribute to the intractability of the conflict. In addition, frames interact, often in ways that tend to reinforce the stability of other frames. Yet, in at least some intractable conflicts, changes in the context of the dispute or purposive interventions designed to alter frames have led to reframing that, in turn, has increased the tractability of the conflict. Strategies to accomplish this reframing include frame analysis and the construction of forums designed to enhance communication, understanding, and trust.


[1] Gray, B. and A. Donnellon, 1989. “An Interactive Theory of Reframing in Negotiation,” unpublished manuscript. Pennsylvania State University, College of Business Administration.

[2] Sheppard, B.H., K. Blumenfeld-Jones and J.W. Minton, 1987. “To control or not to control: Two models of conflict intervention,” unpublished manuscript sited in Pinkley, 1990).

[3] Elliott, M., Gray, B., & Lewicki, R., 2003. Lessons learned about the framing of intractable environmental conflicts. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 409-436), Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

[4] Kaufman, S. and J. Smith, 1999. “Framing and Reframing in Land Use Change Conflicts,” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol.16, no.2, Summer, pp. 164-180.

[5] Elliott, M., Kaufman, S., Gardner, R., and Burgess, G., 2002. “Teaching conflict Assessment and frame analysis through interactive web-based simulations ” The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13:4, pp. 320-340.

[6] e.g. Taylor , D.E., 2000. “The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm. Injustice Framing and the Social Construction of Environmental Discourses,” American Behavioral Scientist. 43 (4), pp. 508-580; and Gonos, G., 1997. “Situation” versus “frame”: The “interactionist” and the “structualist” analyses of everyday life,” American Sociological Review, 42, pp. 854-867.

[7] Watzlawick, P., J. Weakland, and R. Fisch, 1974. Change, Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution, Norton & Company, Inc.; and Goldratt, E.M., 1990. What is this thing called Theory of Constraints and how should it be implemented?, Corton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press, Inc.

[8] e.g., Minsky, M., 1975. “A Framework for Representing Knowledge,” in Winston, P.H.( Ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, New York, NY: McGraw Hill, pp. 177-211.

[9] e.g., Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky, 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrica 47, pp. 263-289.

[10] e.g., Neale, M.A. and M.H. Bazerman, 1985. “The Effects of Framing and Negotiator Overconfidence on Bargaining Behaviors and Outcomes,” Academy of Management Journal 28, pp. 34-49; Gray, B., 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publication; and Pinkley, R.L., 1990. “Dimensions of Conflict Frame: Disputant Interpretations of Conflict,” Journal of Applied Psychology 75, pp. 117-126.

[11] Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M., 2003. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases, Washington, D.C.: Island Press; Kaufman and Smith, 1999, op cit.; and Vaughan, E. and M. Seifert, 1992. “Variability in the Framing of Risk Issues,” Journal of Social Issues 48 (4), pp. 119-135.

[12] Minsky, 1975, op cit. 

[13] Tannen, D., 1979. “What’s in a Frame? Surface Evidence of Underlying Expectations,” In Freedle, R. (ed.), New Dimensions in Discourse Processes, Norwood, NJ: Albex, pp. 137-181.

[14] Gray, B., 1997. “Framing and Reframing of Intractable Environmental Disputes,” in Lewicki, R., R. Bies, and B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 6, p. 171.

[15] Gray 1997, ibid.

[16] Lewicki, R, Saunders, D, and Minton, J., 1999. Negotiation. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

[17] Buechler, S., 2000. Social movements in advanced Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

[18] Gray, B., 2003. Framing of environmental disputes. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 11-34), Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

[19] Putnam, L. and M. Holmer, 1992. “Framing, Reframing, and Issue Development”, in Putnam L. and Roloff, M.E. (Eds.), Communication and Negotiation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, Vol. 20. pp.128-155.

[20] Rothman, J., 1997. Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations, and Communities, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

[21] Heimer, C.A., 1988. “Social Structures, Psychology and the Estimation of Risk,” Annual Review of Sociology 14, pp. 491-519.

[22] Kahneman & Tverski, 1979, op cit.; Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science 211, pp. 453-458; Schweitzer , M.E. and L.A. DeChurch, 2001. “Linking Frames in Negotiations: Gains, Losses and Conflict Frame Adoption.” International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 100-113.

[23] Shmueli, D. and M. Ben Gal, 2000. “Reframing of Protracted Environmental Disputes”, interim report to the Israeli Ministry of Environment, March (Hebrew); Shmueli, D. and M. Ben Gal, 2001. “Conflict Assessment to Promote Dialogue between the Stakeholders involved in the Dispute Surrounding the Treatment and Discharge of Industrial Wastes in the Lower Kishon Basin,” draft June, final November (Hebrew); and Shmueli, D. and M. Ben Gal, forthcoming. “The Potential of Framing in Managing and Resolving Environmental Conflict.” In E. Feitelson, G. de Roo and D. Miller (Eds.), Advancing Sustainability at the Sub-National Level, Ashgate Press.

[24] Elliott, M., Gray, B., & Lewicki, R., 2003. Lessons learned about the framing of intractable environmental conflicts. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 409–436), Washington, D.C.: Island Press at 420.

[25] ibid, at 425-434.

What is Framed?

  • Situations
  • Attributes
  • Choices
  • Actions
  • Issues
  • Responsibility
  • News

Source: Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations


Frame Development, Generation, and Elaboration

Source: FRAMING PROCESSES AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: An Overview and Assessment

  • Discursive Processes
  • Strategic Processes
  • Contested Processes
Strategic Processes

Source: FRAMING PROCESSES AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: An Overview and Assessment

  • Frame Bridging,
  • Frame Amplification,
  • Frame Extension,
  • Frame Transformation.

Contested Processes in Social Movements

Source: FRAMING PROCESSES AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: An Overview and Assessment

There is widespread agreement among movement framing researchers that the development, generation, and elaboration of collective action frames are contested processes. All actors within the collective action arena who engage in this reality construction work are embroiled in the politics of signification. This means that activists are not able to construct and impose on their intended targets any version of reality they would like; rather there are a variety of challenges confronting all those who engage in movement framing activities. Thus far the literature elaborates on three forms these challenges tend to take: counterframing by movement opponents, bystanders, and the media; frame disputes within movements; and the dialectic between frames and events.

Frames and Scenarios

How are Frames related to Scenario Planning?

My Related Posts

Victor Turner’s Postmodern Theory of Social Drama

Erving Goffman: Dramaturgy of Social Life

Kenneth Burke and Dramatism

Truth, Beauty, and Goodness: Integral Theory of Ken Wilber

Dialogs and Dialectics

Global Trends, Scenarios, and Futures: For Foresight and Strategic Management

Shell Oil’s Scenarios: Strategic Foresight and Scenario Planning for the Future

Narrative, Rhetoric and Possible Worlds

Art of Long View: Future, Uncertainty and Scenario Planning

Strategy | Strategic Management | Strategic Planning | Strategic Thinking

Networks, Narratives, and Interaction

Levels of Human Psychological Development in Integral Spiral Dynamics

Key Sources of Research

Framing (Social Sciences)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

Frames and Their Consequences

Francesca Polletta and M. Kai Ho

Click to access 2006%20polletta%20and%20ho%20frames%20and%20their%20consequences.pdf

“Finding frames in a web of culture: The case of the War on Terror,”

Stephen Reese,

in P. D’Angelo and J. Kuypers (eds.) Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical, Theoretical, and Normative Perspectives (New York: Routledge, 2009).

Locating Frames in the Discursive Universe

K. Fisher

First Published September 1, 1997 

Sociological Research Online

Vol 2, Issue 3, 1997

https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.78

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.78

Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations

Kirk Hallahan

Department of Journalism and Technical Communication Colorado State University

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH, 11(3), 205–242 Copyright © 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

FRAMING THEORY

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2007. 10:103–26 doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman

Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208; email: dchong@northwestern.edu; druckman@northwestern.edu

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

Frames, Framing and Reframing


Sanda Kaufman
Michael Elliott
Deborah Shmueli

Original Publication September 2003, updated in June, 2013 and again in June, 2017 by Heidi Burgess

https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/framing

Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership, 

Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. 

7th ed., expected September, 2021.

https://sites.google.com/site/reframingorganizations1/home

FRAMING PROCESSES AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: An Overview and Assessment

Robert D. Benford

Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0324; e-mail: Rbenford1@unl.edu

David A. Snow

Department of Sociology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721; e-mail: snowd@u.arizona.edu

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000. 26:611–39

Documentary Impact: Social Change Through Storytelling

Five Framing Tips: Framing for Social Change

Nat Kendall-Taylor , Allison Stevens

PublishedJune 4, 2019

FrameWorks UK

https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/article/five-framing-tips-framing-for-social-change/

FUNDAMENTAL FRAMES: HOW CULTURAL FRAMES INFORM THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

ANDERS WALKER

From theatrics to metatheatre: The Enron Drama

David Boje

https://davidboje.com/vita/pub/index.html

https://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/theatrics/7/

LIFE IMITATES ART

Enron’s Epic and Tragic Narration

DAVID M. BOJE

GRACE ANN ROSILE 

New Mexico State University

Dramatic Septet

David Boje

https://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/septet/

Critical Dramaturgical Analysis of Enron Antenarratives and Metatheatre

David M. Boje

New Mexico State University

July 10, 2002; July 31, 2002 version

https://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/ENRON_critical_dramaturgical_analysis.htm

Enron Metatheatre:

A Critical Dramaturgy Analysis of Enron�s Quasi-Objects

David M. Boje, New Mexico State University

Paper presented at the Networks, Quasi-Objects, and Identity: Reintegrating Humans, Technology, and Nature session of Denver Academy of Management Meetings. Tuesday August 13, 2002. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/  Revision Date: August 9 2002.

https://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/enron_theatre_LJM.htm

Frame Analysis

Erving Goffman

Framers: Human Advantage in an Age of Technology and Turmoil

Book by Francis de Véricourt, Kenneth Cukier, and Viktor Mayer-Schönberger

2021

A Dialectic Perspective on the Organization Theatre Metaphor

David M. Boje, John T. Luhman, & Ann L. Cunliffe

American Communication Journal

Volume 6, Issue 2, Winter 2003

Doing A Boje: Using Dramaturgical Analysis In Critical Management Studies

Stream 4: Theatrics of Capitalism

Alexis Downs

Adrian N. Carr

From theatrics to metatheatre: The Enron Drama.

Boje, D. M.; Hansen, Hans; & Rosile, Grace Ann.

2007.

Revue Sciences do Gestion, Management Sciences, no 58, p63-83.

Social Movements and the Dramatic Framing of Social Reality

  • January 2013
  • In book: The Drama of Social Life: A Dramaturgical Sourcebook (pp.139-155)
  • Chapter: 9
  • Publisher: Ashgate
  • Editors: Charles Edgley

Robert D Benford

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296333275_Social_Movements_and_the_Dramatic_Framing_of_Social_Reality

Frame Analysis

WIKI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_analysis

THE EMERGENCE, DEVELOPMENT, AND FUTURE OF THE FRAMING PERSPECTIVE: 25+ YEARS SINCE “FRAME ALIGNMENT”*

David A. Snow, Robert D. Benford, Holly J. McCammon, Lyndi Hewitt, and Scott Fitzgerald

Ideology, Frame Resonance and Participant Mobilization

  • January 1988

Authors:

David Snow

Robert D Benford

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285098685_Ideology_Frame_Resonance_and_Participant_Mobilization

Using Scenario Planning to reshape Strategy

Rafael Ramírez, Steve Churchhouse, Alejandra Palermo, and Jonas Hoffmann

June 13, 2017

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/using-scenario-planning-to-reshape-strategy/

Strategic Reframing

The Oxford Scenario Planning Approach

Rafael Ramírez and Angela Wilkinson

Print Length: 272 pages

Publisher: Oxford University Press

Publication Date: May 24, 2016

https://www.apf.org/blogpost/1784113/365221/Book-Review-Strategic-Reframing

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198745693.001.0001/acprof-9780198745693

Our Scenario Approach

Center for Strategy and Scenario Planning

https://www.scenarioplanning.eu/our-scenario-approach

Scenario planning meets frame analysis: Using citizens’ frames as test conditions for policy measures

Petervan Wijcka

Bert Niemeijerbc

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016328716000069

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292679294_Scenario_planning_meets_frame_analysis_Using_citizens%27_frames_as_test_conditions_for_policy_measures

The use and abuse of scenarios

November 1, 2009 

McKinsey

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-use-and-abuse-of-scenarios

Living in the Futures

From the Magazine (May 2013)

https://hbr.org/2013/05/living-in-the-futures

Scenarios: an Explorers Guide

Shell International