Framing: Til afklaring af et spredt paradigme

I denne klassiske artikel om framing-begrebet giver Robert M. Entman en udfoldet definition af framing, ligesom han argumenterer for, at frames findes i hele kommunikationsprocessen, dvs. hos afsenderen, i teksten, hos modtageren og i kulturen. Framing-begrebet har været anvendt i mange discipliner, men kommunikationsforskningen kan med fordel være den centrale overdisciplin, der samler spredte bidrag til en konsistent definition af begrebet. Kommunikationsforskningen kan på denne måde dels styrke sin egen teoretiske stringens og dels bidrage til afklaring af en række problemer i en række andre discipliner vedr. teksters betydning og indflydelse. Artiklen er oprindeligt publiceret i Journal of Communication i 1993. Artiklen er oversat af Stig Hjarvard. 

Framing: Til afklaring af et spredt paradigme

I denne klassiske artikel om framing-begrebet giver Robert M. Entman en udfoldet definition af framing, ligesom han argumenterer for, at frames findes i hele kommunikationsprocessen, dvs. hos afsenderen, i teksten, hos modtageren og i kulturen. Framing-begrebet har været anvendt i mange discipliner, men kommunikationsforskningen kan med fordel være den centrale overdisciplin, der samler spredte bidrag til en konsistent definition af begrebet. Kommunikationsforskningen kan på denne måde dels styrke sin egen teoretiske stringens og dels bidrage til afklaring af en række problemer i en række andre discipliner vedr. teksters betydning og indflydelse. Artiklen er oprindeligt publiceret i Journal of Communication i 1993. Artiklen er oversat af Stig Hjarvard

Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm

In response to the proposition that communication lacks disciplinary status because of deficient core knowledge, I propose that we turn an ostensible weakness into a strength. We should identify our mission as bringing together insights and theories that would otherwise remain scattered in other disciplines. Because of the lack of interchange among the disciplines, hypotheses thoroughly discredited in one field may receive wide acceptance in another. Potential research paradigms remain fractured, with pieces here and there but no comprehensive statement to guide research. By bringing ideas together in one location, communication can aspire to become a master discipline that synthesizes related theories and concepts and exposes them to the most rigorous, comprehensive statement and exploration. Reaching this goal would require a more self-conscious determination by communication scholars to plumb other fields and feed back their studies to outside researchers. At the same time, such an enterprise would enhance the theoretical rigor of communication scholarship proper. The idea of "framing" offers a case study of just the kind of scattered conceptualization I have identified. Despite its omnipresence across the social sciences and humanities, nowhere is there a general statement of framing theory that shows exactly how frames become embedded within and make themselves manifest in a text, or how framing influences thinking. Analysis of this concept suggests how the discipline of communication might contribute something unique: synthesizing a key concept's disparate uses, showing how they invariably involve communication, and constructing a coherent theory from them. Whatever its specific use, the concept of framing consistently offers a way to describe the power of a communicating text. Analysis of frames illuminates the precise way in which influence over a human consciousness is exerted by the transfer (or communication) of information from Robert M. Entman is an associate professor of communication studies

Public perceptions of shale gas in the UK : framing effects and decision heuristics

Using two equivalent descriptions of the shale gas development process, we asked individuals to indicate their levels of support as well as their perceptions of the risks and costs involved. In version 1, shale gas development was framed as ‘fracking’, whereas under version 2 it was framed as ‘using hydraulic pressure to extract natural gas from the ground’. We find that individuals’ support for shale gas development is much lower when using the term ‘fracking’ as opposed to the synonymous descriptive term, and moreover, these differences were substantive. Our analysis suggests that these differences appear to be largely the result of different assessments of the risks associated with ‘fracking’ as opposed to ‘using hydraulic pressure to extract natural gas from the ground’. Our proposed explanation for these differences rests on the idea that shale gas development is a technical and complex process and many individuals will be bounded by the rationality of scientific knowledge when it comes to understanding this process. In turn, individuals may be relying on simple decision heuristics shaped by the way this issue is framed by the media and other interested parties which may constrain meaningful discourse on this topic with the public. Our findings also highlight some of the potential pitfalls when it comes to relying on survey research for assessing the public’s views towards complex environmental issues