Framing Theory
From https://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/framing-theory/
The concept of framing is related to the agenda-setting tradition but expands the
research by focusing on the essence of the issues at hand rather than on a particular
topic. The basis of framing theory is that the media focuses attention on certain
events and then places them within a field of meaning. Framing is an important topic
since it can have a big influence and therefore the concept of framing expanded to
organizations as well.
In essence, framing theory suggests that how something is presented to the audience
(called “the frame”) influences the choices people make about how to process that
information. Frames are abstractions that work to organize or structure message
meaning. The most common use of frames is in terms of the frame the news or media
place on the information they convey. They are thought to influence the perception of
the news by the audience, in this way it could be construed as a form of second level
agenda-setting – they not only tell the audience what to think about (agenda-setting
theory), but also how to think about that issue (second level agenda setting, framing
theory).
The theory was first put forth by Goffman, under the title of Frame Analysis (link to
PDF of article). He put forth that people interpret what is going on around their
world through their primary framework. This framework is regarded as primary as it
is taken for granted by the user. Its usefulness as a framework does not depend on
other frameworks.
Goffman states that there are two distinctions within primary frameworks: natural +
social. Both play the role of helping individuals interpret data. So that their
experiences can be understood in a wider social context. The difference between the
two is functional.
Natural frameworks identify events as physical occurrences taking natural quote
literally and not attributing any social forces to the causation of events. Social
frameworks view events as socially driven occurrences, due to the whims, goals, and
manipulations on the part of other social players (people). Social frameworks are
built on the natural frameworks. These frameworks and the frames that they create
in our communication greatly influence how data is interpreted, processed, and
communicated. Goffman’s underlying assumption is that individuals are capable
users of these frameworks on a day to day basis. Whether they are aware of them or
not.
An actual frame.
Framing techniques per Fairhurst and Sarr (1996):
Metaphor: To frame a conceptual idea through comparison to something else.
Stories (myths, legends): To frame a topic via narrative in a vivid and memorable
way.
Tradition (rituals, ceremonies): Cultural mores that imbue significance in the
mundane, closely tied to artifacts.
Slogan, jargon, catchphrase: To frame an object with a catchy phrase to make it
more memorable and relate-able.
Artifact: Objects with intrinsic symbolic value – a visual/cultural phenomenon
that holds more meaning than the object it self.
Contrast: To describe an object in terms of what it is not.
Spin: to present a concept in such a ways as to convey a value judgement (positive
or negative) that might not be immediately apparent; to create an inherent bias
by definition.
Framing is in many ways tied very closely to Agenda Setting theory. Both focus on
how media draws the public’s eye to specific topics – in this way they set the agenda.
But Framing takes this a step further in the way in which the news is presented
creates a frame for that information. This is usually a conscious choice by journalists
– in this case a frame refers to the way media as gatekeepers organize and present
the ideas, events, and topics they cover.
Framing is the way a communication source defines and constructs a any piece of
communicated information. Framing is an unavoidable part of human
communication – we all bring our own frames to our communications.
Sources + further reading:
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of
Experience. New York, NY et al.: Harper & Row
Fairhurst, G. & Sarr, R. 1996. The art of Framing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scheufele, Dietram A. 1999. “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects.” Journal of
Communication 49 (4): 103-22.
