See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241880311
Strategies to take subjectivity out of framing analysis
Article  in  Work and Stress · January 2010
CITATIONS
141
READS
3,997
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Euro Crisis in the News View project
Visualizing Online Networks of Turkish Diaspora in Three European Countries: Testing the Role of Network Structure and Dynamics in Social Capital Building and
integration, Using Evidence from the Gezi Park Protests in Turkey View project
Baldwin Van Gorp
KU Leuven
97 PUBLICATIONS   1,890 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Baldwin Van Gorp on 20 November 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Van Gorp -- 1
To cite this paper: Van Gorp, B. (2010). Strategies to take subjectivity out of framing analysis. In: D'Angelo P.,
Kuypers J. (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. New York: Routledge,
84-109.
Strategies to Take Subjectivity out of Framing Analysis
Baldwin Van Gorp
My interest in the framing concept is rooted in my background as a journalist. When I
returned to academic research and began a Ph.D. project on my former professional
occupation, Watson (1998) directed me to the work of Entman (1991, 1993), which
highlighted the functionality of frames in the news, namely, “to select some aspects of a
perceived reality and make them more salient in a communication text, in such a way as to
promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or
treatment recommendation” (1993, p. 52 ). Over time, I realized what I had been dealing
with as a journalist: looking for frames that could turn events into news stories by suggesting
an explanation for what happened in the surrounding world.
The line of thought that is the basis of my conceptualization of framing was developed
in these key works: James (1890/1950, pp. 283-324), Schutz (1945/1964), Bateson
(1955/1972), Goffman (1975), Tuchman (1978), Gamson and Modigliani (1989), and Entman
(1991, 1993). The decisive Aha-Erlebnis came when I tried to merge insights of narrative
analysis with the constructionist approach to framing as formulated by Gamson and
colleagues (Gamson, 1992; Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes, & Sasson, 1992; Gamson & Lasch,
1983; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Constructionism deals with the process in which
individuals and groups actively create social reality from different information sources
(Neuman, Just, & Crigler, 1992; Wicks, 2005). Journalists are in the middle of this dynamic
process of meaning construction in that they present additional layers of interpretation of
issues and events in the form of a news story. They cannot tell stories effectively without
Van Gorp -- 2
preconceived notions about how to order story elements and about what meanings they could
or should impose upon those story elements.
Another conceptualization of framing that informs my work comes from Swidler’s
(1986) conceptualization of ‘culture’ as a ‘tool kit’ of symbols from which people may select
some to construct strategies and to solve problems. By situating frames at the cultural level,
they also are conceptualized as a ‘tool kit’ from which journalists draw upon to do their job,
much as individuals use news stories as a ‘tool kit’ to understand their social and political
environments (cf. D’Angelo, 2002, p. 877). Thus, one way of approaching news framing
analysis—the approach taken in my work—is to understand journalistic practice by
identifying the cultural notions that working journalists apply in order to frame the behaviors
and motivations of news sources and to explain the origins of an issue, both of which suggest
to the audience how an event can be interpreted.
Various scholars have argued that journalists employ common understandings to cover
news events, such as myths and archetypes (e.g., Bird & Dardenne, 1997; Coman, 2005; Lule,
2001), narratives (e.g., Bennett & Edelman, 1985; Roeh, 1989), and values (e.g., Gans, 1979).
These authors did not yet situate their thoughts within the framing tradition, but you cannot
but conclude that, for instance, the “situation-defining symbolic forms” (Bennett & Edelman,
1985, p. 156), the “macroanalytic features of narrative” (Gurevitch & Kavoori, 1994, p. 14),
and “platforms, frameworks, and rules” (Manoff & Schudson, 1986, p. 5) are in fact news
frames.
As a result, my research focuses on news frames that express culturally shared notions
with symbolic significance, such as stereotypes, values, archetypes, myths, and narratives.
These phenomena are interwoven with each other, but they refer to different aspects of a
news story. Myths are related to narratives, but whereas a myth deals with “the deep truth of
human experience” (Silverblatt, Ferry, & Finan, 1999, p. 144, italics in original), a narrative
Van Gorp -- 3
stands for a script structure with a development in different stages, from problem to
resolution. Values are reproduced in myths and embodied by archetypes. Archetypes are
motifs and characters that help to structure stories, and stereotypes refer to the simplified
characteristics of a group of actors.
My contribution to this book explicitly elaborates on a theoretical essay in which I
expound upon a constructionist view of framing (see Van Gorp, 2007)—a view that weaves
together these strands of literature and clarifies what culturally embedded frames are.
Locating frames on this level would seem to be an inherently subjective enterprise, owing to
their latent presence in news texts. However, in this chapter, I wish to present some
methodological guidelines for doing framing analysis that will help to take the subjectivity
out of finding these sorts of frames in news discourses. I argue for an approach that
combines, on the one hand, inductive framing analysis, in which a repertoire of frame
packages is reconstructed, and, on the other hand, techniques for validating the reliability of
the results in a deductively executed content analysis.
Culturally Embedded Frames
I’ll first illustrate culturally embedded frames by describing an ongoing study on
poverty in the news (see, e.g., Van Gorp, Blow, & Van de Velde, 2005). The news frames
we identified are all rooted in common cultural themes, such as the archetypes of villain,
victim, and tragic hero, the stereotype of the vagabond, and the conviction that each
individual has a pre-given destiny. In this study, my colleagues and I hold that journalists
express these frames in news discourse, and that the meaning of the issue changes
fundamentally according to the chosen frame.
Specifically, a number of archetypes may function as a frame. If the archetype of the
villain is used, poverty is the result of certain individuals who make use of, or abuse, the
social welfare system to which they do not financially contribute. The poor lack the will to
Van Gorp -- 4
work and that is why they live in poor conditions. A more positive usage of this frame results
in a stereotypical portrayal of the jolly vagabond who feels very strongly about complete
freedom and opts for voluntary poverty. Next, poor people can be portrayed as victims of a
demanding socio-economical system. Some succeed in beating the system and become
heroes when they combat poverty. Other poor people do not succeed, because they try to
change what is unalterable and fight in vain a pitiless and demanding society. Persons who
are familiar with Cervantes’ novel may recognize in these idealistic poor Don Quixote, who
frequently appears in the media in many guises. Seen from this perspective, poor people
dispose of the will to escape poverty, but they fail because they do not benefit from equal
opportunities. The popular wisdom that ‘fate will catch up with you’ is a second type of
frame that leads to an interpretation of poverty as the result of misfortune and repeated
setbacks, such as a bankruptcy, an accident, or sickness. To lead a poor existence is the result
of an inescapable destiny that can turn anyone into poverty.
The examples demonstrate that journalists have at their disposal a repertoire of frames
that can be useful to construct a news story—in this case, a story about poverty.
Organizational factors, external conditions, and journalistic sources may influence the
selection of a frame. As such, the sequential use of frames may follow a framing cycle, with
an emergence phase, a conflict phase, and a resolution phase (Miller & Riechert, 2001). For
instance, in our analysis we found that in the news homeless people are less blamed for
poverty during the cold December month than in summer time when they may bother tourists
(Van Gorp, Blow, & Van de Velde, 2005). Other contextual factors may influence the
selection of a frame. Further, in a framing analysis of news on asylum-seekers I noted that
journalists particularly tend to adopt the frames from their sources with regard to unfamiliar
and unexpected topics (Van Gorp, 2005). However, soon after the first coverage, news media
introduced their own frames and apparently neglected the frame as offered by their sources.
Van Gorp -- 5
Thus, the process of frame-building, in which media frames are formed and change over time
(Scheufele, 1999), can be understood as a process in which journalists frame events and
issues not only by applying news values, but also by being sensitive to cultural themes.
Values, narratives, and archetypes are couched in almost any form of communication,
both popular and informative, “because they embody the fears, hopes, and prejudices of the
cultures in which their audiences live” (Bennett & Edelman, 1985, pp. 157-158). Journalists
already make themselves familiar with these culturally shared elements in the process of
socialization that precedes their journalistic training and experience. Therefore, they are
often not aware of adopting, using, and reproducing them in the news.
Culturally embedded frames are appealing for journalists because they are ready for use.
On the basis of their narrative ingredients it is possible to assign roles to the principal actors
of an issue (e.g., good-bad, advocate-opponent), specify what the problem is and who is
responsible, and so forth, all of which contributes to the dramatization and the emotional
appeal of the news (Van Os, Van Gorp, & Wester, 2008). As a result, frames sometimes
‘over-problematize’ an event, which adds to the endurance of an issue. On the other hand,
the selection of a particular frame can contribute to the perceived solution of a problem, in
the sense that the media attention for an issue decreases. I noted such a resolution phase in
the Belgian newspaper coverage of asylum when there was a shift in frames from the intruder
frame to the victim frame, whereas the objective conditions, reflected in the number of
asylum applications, did not follow that trend (Van Gorp, 2005).
There are two reasons why I give preference to these types of frames over issuespecific
frames and generic frames, such as the omnipresent conflict frame. First, they
possess an outspoken defining capacity. By placing new events in these familiar molds
constructive insights can be introduced into social life. Second, frames that resonate with
cultural themes have a natural advantage above other types of frames (Gamson & Modigliani,
Van Gorp -- 6
1989, p. 5). Because such frames make an appeal to ideas the receiver is already familiar
with, their use appears to be natural to those who are member of a particular culture or
society. Such ‘cultural resonance’ makes the association between a frame and the issue seem
transparent and obvious (Benford & Snow, 2000; Schudson, 1989). In this vein, Hertog and
McLeod (2001, p. 141) invoked a cultural explanation of the power of news frames by
emphasizing their symbolic meaning, their potential to evoke other familiar stories, and their
widespread recognition. In sum, culturally embedded frames form universally understood
codes that implicitly influence the receiver’s message interpretation, which lends meaning,
coherence, and ready explanations for complex issues.
Because the organizational routines of journalistic practice encourage the use of
culturally embedded frames to tell stories about many topics and issues, their capacity to
define issues and events remains largely unnoticed both within news culture and, to an extent,
within the scholarly study of news framing (Gamson et al., 1992). This causes a problem for
the frame analyst, precisely because the person who does a frame analysis belongs most often
to the same culture as in which the news is produced. Conceivably, the most obvious frames
are overlooked. Therefore, in classroom situations, I advise students to start their framing
analyses by looking at some newspaper articles or TV news items about the issue covered
years ago. As weird and unusual the use of these former frames may look today, so normal
and obvious they were at that time. The same is true for the frames the news media employ
today.
Between Constructionism and Constructivism
The approach to frames as cultural phenomena does not imply that all cultural concepts
are frames by definition (cf. Fisher, 1997). They only become frames when someone applies
them for their defining capacity. Accordingly, each culture or subculture has a limited set of
commonly used frames that are institutionalized in various ways and prized and protected for
Van Gorp -- 7
their ability to explain important issues (Entman, 1993, p. 53; cf. Goffman, 1981, p. 63). In
Western societies, for instance, the idea that each person must have will power and is able to
exercise control over the body has become a norm that governs our social behavior and forms
the basis of parenting, education, and jurisdiction (cf. Lakoff, 1995). Thus, frame-building in
the media, including (and perhaps, especially) in the news media, is at its core a process in
which cultural values and norms are reproduced.
Not only do journalists draw upon the stock of frames that culture provides to them, so
do their sources and audiences. Although the cultural repertoire is formed and reformed in
the interaction between groups of people, some parts of it may be rarely employed or ignored
(cf. Swidler, 1986). In that respect one could state that some alternative frames already exist
and wait to be used or reused (cf. Hartley, 1982, p. 28).
The idea of a cultural repertoire of frames seems to situate frames outside the
individual. In line with their constructionist approach to framing, Gamson and Modigliani
(1989) argued that this cultural level indeed follows a logic of its own, which runs parallel to
the cognitive level of individual meaning construction. They conclude that the social
construction of meaning resides in the interaction of the cultural system and the individual
system, but also that the first can be examined in its own right, regardless of its causal effect
on individual opinion formation. However, Pan and Kosicki (1993, p. 58), who adhere to the
constructivist approach, do not assume that the presence of frames in the news can be
analyzed independent of the interpreting individual. This apparent ontological
contradistinction is rooted in the debate between structuralism and symbolic interactionism
that followed from Goffman’s Frame analysis (Goffman, 1975; see, e.g., Denzin & Keller,
1981; Hazelrigg, 1992). As seen from the first perspective, news texts are complex systems
of meaningful elements, whereas in the second perspective this meaning structure only
reveals itself in the interaction between the text and its reader.
Van Gorp -- 8
To return to the poverty example, a TV report about a homeless person who was
sleeping on a bench in a public park with a bottle of liquor in his hand led to a discussion
during the analysis in which we tried to relate the TV reports to the question who is to blame
for poverty (Van Gorp, Blow, & Van de Velde, 2005). One interpretation started from the
particular individual and his apparent alcohol addiction, which may be the cause of the poor
conditions. Also, the degradation and dangerous nature of public spaces may be evoked by
the image. My colleagues, however, exercised restraint in blaming a homeless man for his
poverty. For them, structural circumstances are ultimately the cause for poverty. From a
constructionist approach, however, there is some inherent structure in the portrayal: the
homeless man, the bottle, and the park tell the story of someone who is not willing to work.
From a constructivist perspective there is both a victim and a villain who are sleeping on that
bench. It depends on the interaction between the receiver’s prior knowledge and the TV
report whether the victim frame or the villain frame is used to put a meaning on the report.
In earlier work I suggest a middle position (Van Gorp, 2007). On the one hand, frames
are part of a culture and not purely individual, and, on the other hand, individuals are needed
as an agent to make a connection between a text and the cultural stock of frames. Thus, the
cultural stock of frames is not above people but among them, because culture originates
through communication and it is articulated in the mass media and in discourse. The
theoretical decision to opt for a somewhat external positioning beyond the individual rests on
the incapacity of the individual to change or create myths, stereotypes, values, and so forth.
For the most part, the life spans of cultural motifs exceed the life expectancy of the individual.
Furthermore, the extra-individual conception of culture gives more power to culture than
when it is internalized (Kubal, 1998; Swidler, 1995). However, individuals can mediate the
persuasive power of frames by using them: by articulating cultural themes in socially situated
conversations individuals can indeed re-configure these themes. Talking with frames (not
Van Gorp -- 9
about them per se) integrates these frames with personal experiences and associations, not all
of which are consistent with the external manifestations of the cultural theme (cf. Edy &
Meirick, 2007). Thus, the social and cultural claim made by the constructionist approach
held here does not completely rule out a psychological mechanism within framing. Quite the
reverse, it acknowledges that the individual cognitive level and the social cultural level are
interdependent and mutually responsive.
Content Analysis in Framing Analysis
A concern about the reliability and validity in framing research on the basis of content
analysis is regularly expressed in the literature (e.g., Matthes & Kohring, 2008; Tankard,
2001). This concern is to a large extent caused by the difficulty to demonstrate the
relationship between the abstract frame and the pattern of elements within a news text that are
able to evoke the core frame on the side of the receiver. In fact, frames do not need to be
explicitly mentioned in the news to generate an effect (Hertog & McLeod, 2001).
From the position that there is an underlying meaning structure, which can be
observed independently form the interpreting subject, it is possible to turn to content analysis
to reveal this hidden structure. If this structuralistic perspective is rejected, you cannot but
turn to the receivers and regard each personal interpretation as an additional ‘insert’ into the
original text. In that case, you also need to scrap the ambition to reveal what journalists say
between the lines on the basis of a content analysis.
The very first attempt I ever did to do a framing analysis was labeled as being too
‘impressionistic’. Therefore, much of my further effort was devoted to meet the standards of
validity and reliability that are traditionally expected from a content analysis. Although I
tried to do this by systematically taking into account all techniques to assure that the results
are sufficiently reliable, I found out that some level of subjectivity is unavoidable. After all,
the linkage between the explicit elements of the news text and the central framing idea, which
Van Gorp -- 10
is part of a larger cultural level, requires some interpretation by the person who is doing the
analysis. The researchers who are doing a frame analysis are also individuals for whom it is
difficult to withdraw themselves from their own cognitive knowledge. Taking this into
account, the aim of the chapter is to present a number of methodological considerations and a
practical guide that can be helpful to systematically reconstruct the frames that are applied in
the news. Techniques for doing content analysis can help to limit the subjective involvement
of the person who is doing the framing analysis and improve the reliability and validity of the
results.
The Reconstruction of Frame Packages
In framing research a deductive strategy is regularly used, namely, a predefined and
limited set of frames is invoked and the empirical aim of the study is to decide to what extent
these frames are applied in the news, in campaigns, in TV series, on websites, in political
communication, and so forth, and which effects they produce (for an overview of approaches
see Matthes & Kohring, 2008). But where do those frames come from? On what level and
by which techniques are they to be observed? These are questions that are frequently left
open in deductive analyses. They can be satisfactorily answered via an inductive framing
analysis in which the spectrum of conceivable frames that are relevant for the topic under
scrutiny is identified.
Gamson and colleagues (Gamson & Lasch, 1983; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989) coined
the notion of ‘media package’, but as it suggests that the package is a product of media
routines, and not of a broader culture or society, I prefer the term ‘frame package’ (Van Gorp,
2007). Each reconstructed frame is presented by a frame package, that is, an integrated
structure of framing devices and a logical chain of reasoning devices that demonstrates how
the frame functions to represent a certain issue. The manifest elements in a text that function
as demonstrable indicators of the frame are the framing devices. Metaphors, historical
Van Gorp -- 11
examples from which lessons are drawn, catchphrases, depictions, and visual images are five
framing devices Gamson and Modigliani (1989) referred to. Other devices that can be taken
into account are themes and subthemes, types of actors, actions and settings, lines of
reasoning and causal connections, contrasts, lexical choices, sources, quantifications and
statistics, charts and graphs, appeals (emotional, logical, and ethical), all of which contribute
to the narrative and rhetorical structure of a text (see Kitzinger, 2007; Pan & Kosicki, 1993;
Tankard, 2001). The number of words and pictures, the lay-out of a text, the placement of a
news article on a page, and the editing of an audio-visual production, are not considered as
being framing devices but are, rather, formatting devices. These, too, are important, as they
provide cues about how readers and viewers of news perceive the salience and importance of
the topic being framed.
The reasoning devices refer to the defining functions of frames, as identified by Entman
(1993), and they form a route of causal reasoning which may be evoked when an issue is
associated with a particular frame. The most important difference between framing devices
and reasoning devices is that the reasoning devices do not need to be explicitly included in a
mediated message. During the interpretation of the message, when a mental connection is
made between the text, the frame, and the individual schema, the reader may come-up with
causal inferences that are in line with the reasoning devices.
A core function of framing is to define issues—some as being problematic, and others
as not problematic. To make this point clear, Edelman (1988) refers to the social issues of
racism and sexism that remained unproblematic for a long period of time, until the
application of certain frames altered the situation. Other crucial defining functions of
framing are to indicate what the cause of the problem is, what has to be done, why and who is
responsible for causes, consequences, and solutions, and to convey moral judgments (Entman,
Van Gorp -- 12
1993). A frame may be more suitable to indicate the origins of an issue, others the
consequences, but they all have the ability to promote a specific interpretation.
The example of poverty can further exemplify the importance of these reasoning
devices. For this topic, the most important reasoning device regards who is to blame for
poverty. This can be an abstraction, such as faith or structural and societal forces, or a human
agent, in extremity the poor people themselves. Most often, this causal reasoning is not
explicitly touched upon in the news. However, the incorporation of explicit framing devices
in the news may implicitly promote a certain causal reasoning. For instance, Iyengar (1991)
demonstrated that viewers are inclined to blame the victim when poverty is portrayed in an
episodic news format, without a thematic elaboration of the issue. They hold the portrayed
poor responsible for their poverty-stricken position.
In a framing analysis of the American youth series The O.C. we found the value of selfcontrol
as an important frame in the portrayal of alcohol consumption (Van den Bulck,
Simons, & Van Gorp, 2008). The idea expressed through the frame sounds that a person
needs always to be able to exercise control over the body, and therefore it is a matter of willpower
to stand the temptation of alcohol. The same holds true for the homeless man sleeping
on a bench in the park with a bottle of French brandy in his hand.
In my conceptualization, the heart of a framing analysis is to identify the framing and
reasoning devices and to relate them to a condensing symbol, which is part of a shared
culture. The frame molds the frame package to an internally consistent whole. The intention
of an inductive framing analysis is to reconstruct the frames that are useful to define a certain
topic. A systematic analysis of the framing and reasoning devices that relate to a specific
frame makes it possible to instruct independent coders to identify the presence of the frame in
a subsequent deductive phase, thus limiting, or even eliminating, subjectivity from the
Van Gorp -- 13
framing analysis. Procedures that can be useful in the reconstruction of frame packages and
in their verification are explained in the following paragraphs.
Inductive Phase
The construction of a frame matrix
The end product of the inductive phase is a frame matrix (Gamson & Lasch, 1983; for
examples see Pan, Lee, Man Chan, & So, 1999; Van den Bulck, Simons, & Van Gorp, 2008;
Van Gorp, 2005; Van Os, Van Gorp, & Wester, 2008). Each row in the matrix represents a
frame package and each column an enumeration of framing and reasoning devices by which
the frame manifests itself. I defined the moral basis of the victim frame as the duty to help
people in affliction, whereas compassion forms the emotional basis (Van Gorp, 2005). With
regard to the issue of undocumented immigration the frame matrix can be completed with the
type and role of the illegal immigrant who frequently falls into the hands of human traffickers
and who is in need of help. The problem definition is oriented towards the question how to
receive these anxious refugees who are forced to leave their country. The main problem
source is the gap between rich and poor countries. The countries that live in comfort
shoulder the responsibility to develop a flexible, cautiously, and effectively applied migration
policy.
During a simultaneous process of collecting, coding, and analyzing of texts the frame
packages gradually take shape. I use the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss,
1967/1971) as the central methodological principle. The repeated examination of the source
material offers the opportunity to support and to document the preliminary findings. The
inductive coding takes place during three coding procedures: open coding, axial coding, and
selective coding (cf. Strauss & Corbin, 1990). These steps are not necessarily sequential, but
rather are iterative. For instance, the use of a certain frame can be dominant and the
constituent elements obvious, thus allowing the frame matrix to be filled in an early stage of
Van Gorp -- 14
the analysis. Other frames may be nascent or may have escaped notice during the first steps
of the analysis. I have found that it is regularly necessary to go back to the source material
already dealt with, reexamine it, and to do some additional observations in order to gain
further insight in the newly identified frame.
Because the purpose is to reconstruct the underlying culturally embedded frames in a
text, the question is raised as to whether the researcher should be a member of a cultural
group. All the examples in this chapter stem from my West-European cultural background
and reflect the usefulness of a level of familiarity with this cultural heritage. Still, it is
important to maintain some distance from the personal thinking patterns in order to grasp the
striking and natural characteristics of a (sub)culture. Ideally, therefore, members that belong
to a cultural group and outsiders to that group should work together to do the job. For
instance, I can benefit as a Belgian citizen working at a university in the Netherlands to
discuss Dutch media messages with the students by bringing in my perspective of a relative
outsider.
Procedures of analysis
Step 1: Collect source material. Because frames are part of a culture they enjoy wider
circulation than simply being in news stories. Certain frames that circulate in public debate
may not be picked-up by the news media, whereas other frames are typically applied by the
media or by a specific frame advocate. Therefore, do not limit this phase of the analysis to
the news media. Frames are used in different places, in different circumstances, and in
different periods of time. Some frames are applied only by advocates, others only by their
opponents. It is also possible that the one time a frame is used to argue in favor of an issue,
the other it is used to argue against the issue.
It is advisable to strategically collect sources of ‘frame sponsors’ who use frames for
strategic purposes, including, for instance, pressure groups, NGOs, and political parties (see
Van Gorp -- 15
also Kruse, 2001). In press releases, pamphlets, and brochures of frame advocates often one
frame dominates and can be more easily identified. I experienced that the news media, in
contrast, may apply more than one frame to cover a certain issue (Van Gorp, 2005).
Step 2: Open coding of the texts. To do an open coding means that texts are analyzed
without the use of a predefined coding instrument. The different elements of the strategically
collected set of texts are compared to make an inventory of empirical indicators that may
contribute to the readers’ interpretation of the text. The most important guideline is not to
focus on what a text is about, but on how it is told. Essentially, creating a story is the making
of choices. With regard to the news, framing is not about the core facts of a news event, but
about what selections the journalist has made. When a news story is just about core facts and
the journalist’s only choice is whether to write the story or not, there is probably no frame
applied. It depends on how frames are conceptualized, but if they are reflected in how a news
story is told, news packed in a rudimentary news format, such as the inverted pyramid, is
frameless. In newspapers, this concerns most often short informative messages—for instance,
those about car accidents. Even if the number of casualties is mentioned, this does not
necessarily mean the victim frame has been used.
Table 1 contains a short excerpt taken from a newspaper article published in the
Canadian daily National Post. It shows that some elements are worth listing as feasible
framing or reasoning devices. Defining with which frame package they belong is part of the
next steps in the analysis.
[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]
Step 3: Arranging the codes around ‘axes’ of meaning. The next step of the analysis is
to look for patterns of devices by linking them to overarching ideas. Whereas in the second
step the inventory of devices is made for each separate text, in the third step similarities,
differences, and contrasts between the devices are indicated and reduced to dimensions. The
Van Gorp -- 16
level of abstraction increases as soon as the framing devices and the reasoning devices are
separated from the specific news stories. The coded elements in the example in Table 1
could result in at least one dimension, namely, there are poor people who deserve our help
and others don’t. Furthermore, the metaphor of the ‘rising tide’ suggests that poverty can
turn into something that is unstoppable and threatening.
In this phase, it is also advisable to turn to the literature. During open coding this
should be avoided, because it may obscure the open mind. By contrast, during the axial
coding, the distinction between God’s poor, who deserve our charity, and the devil’s poor,
the undeserving poor (cf. Gamson & Lasch, 1983; Golding & Middleton, 1982) is helpful to
identify which textual elements coming from the open coding are indicative of what is at
stake with regard to the drug users in the example.
Step 4: Selective coding. The next step in the analysis is to sort out the codes by filling
in the cells of a frame matrix. Ultimately, the row entries should represent a frame package
and the column entries should refer to the central reasoning and framing devices. Each row is
a logically and integrated cluster of devices that refers to the same organizing frame. Each
column summarizes the diversity of a framing function, for instance, definitions of an issue.
Some elements from the axial coding will be left out; others are included in the matrix
because they can adequately reflect the frame. Therefore, the first task is to complete the
matrix one column after another. Then, search for logical combinations across the columns:
definition, causal responsibility, solutions, treatment responsibility, and so on. The purpose
is to look for a limited number of frame packages that are mutually exclusive and in which
each link is meaningful.
Most often, the analysis of only one text is not sufficient to complete the entire matrix.
However, the news story that serves as our example (see Table 1) contains an interesting pair
of competing frames. The journalist has chosen to bring the story as a fight between good
Van Gorp -- 17
and evil. The drug users are framed as the villains or as the Devil’s poor, a stereotype that
rather naturally conflicts with the Christian value of charity that is used as a frame for the
event. The value of charity is put into question. Unselfish intentions are criticized because
the Devil’s poor benefit. The charitable institution is responsible and should be more
critically to whom it distributes a free breakfast.
Naming the frame package involves the researcher in making an association with a
cultural motive that can function as the core idea, thus fusing the framing devices to a
coherent unit. Students experience this step as being the most difficult one to take. Mainly,
this is because the subjective interpretation of the frame analysis—to express the central
structuring idea in a frame package—is introduced in the analysis. Indeed, giving a name to a
frame involves a kind of framing on the part of the researcher (Tankard, 2001, p. 89).
In some instances, naming a frame can be rather easily done when the journalist
explicitly mentions the frame. For instance, in a newspaper article genetically engineered
trees are called “Frankentrees” (Little, 2008). Frankenstein’s monster, who has become an
internationally applied symbol for the threats associated with genetic engineering (Hitchcock,
2007), suggests that something that is intended to be beautiful turns out to be something
dangerous and unmanageable. With this famous fictional character it is easy to suggest that
these trees can endanger life on earth, even without explaining how exactly the trees may
cross-breed with natural forests and endanger biodiversity. Also, a journalist of The
Washington Post (Spivack, 2008) conjures with the David vs. Goliath frame by suggesting
that huge developers clash with players in the real estate market when plans for city extension
are unfolded. As the journalist suggests, sometimes it is a struggle among two giants,
“Goliath vs., well, Goliath.” Most often, however, journalists are rather inexplicit about the
applied frame; to be otherwise they would first need to be aware that the selection of frames
Van Gorp -- 18
is part of their daily routines. Table 2 provides a list of culturally embedded frames that can
be useful to identify the core concept at the heart of a frame.
[INSERT TABLE 2 HERE]
Evaluation criteria
Once a repertoire of frames is defined, two questions need to be answered. First, is the
list of frames complete? Second, are these frames the most dominant ones?. An exercise that
can be helpful to examine the need to carry out an additional coding cycle is to sort the texts
according to the applied frame. A text that cannot be put on any pile is either frameless or
can point to a frame that has not yet been identified.
There are three criteria that can be helpful to evaluate the suitability of a frame: (a) the
thickness of the frame description; (b) the degree of abstraction; and (c) the applicability of a
frame to define other issues. First, can the frame package be fully described with an
extensive list of framing and reasoning devices? If the answer is ‘yes,’ then the frame
potentially promotes a specific meaning. The thickness of the description is also an indicator
for the dominance of the frame in the news. Second, is the chain of reasoning devices, from
problem definition to (policy) solution, complete and logically consistent? Some frames have
the ability to define an issue as not being problematic and, as a matter of course, to absolve
some agents of responsibility. For instance, the location of a new reception centre for asylum
seekers in a residential area can be framed as a ‘gift’ of the government (the donor) to the
neighborhood because it creates jobs, enables storekeepers to gain customers, and stimulates
cultural exchange (Van Gorp, 2006). A third question is: Are the frames sufficiently
abstract? The main challenge here is to decide upon the appropriate level of abstraction. To
meet this criterion the frames must be applicable to define other issues. An issue or event can
be presented from different perspectives (i.e., framed differently), and each frame may be
used to give meaning to different issues or events. This is a rule of thumb that I always keep
Van Gorp -- 19
in mind when evaluating a frame analysis. Each frame has to be abstract enough in order to
be applicable to other issues that likely lie beyond the scope of the specific research topic.
Deductive Phase
Validation of the inductively reconstructed frames
The framing devices and the manifest reasoning devices are crucial in the deductive
phase of a framing analysis because they are recognizable, demonstrable, and countable, and
because they can be arranged and manipulated (Pan & Kosicki, 1993). The deductive phase
is based on the principles of a quantitative content analysis in order to measure to what extent
the inductively reconstructed frame packages are actually applied in a representative sample
of texts. In stead of taking a random sample it can be sensible to focus on the news coverage
of particular key events which can cause a frame shift.
Procedures of analysis
Step 1: Make a codebook of the frame matrix. One way to put down the frame in coding
instructions is to think of a limited number of questions that grasp the core idea expressed by
the frame. Although the procedures are meant to take subjectivity out, it is inevitable to
sacrifice some reliability, because frames are ‘hidden’ meaning structures. Reliability is a
necessary condition for validity, but for a framing analysis to be valid it cannot be limited to
just the most easily quantifiable aspects of a text.
Experience leads me to conclude that there are four rules of thumb for securing the
reliability of the results. First, limit the deductive phase to frames that are clearly mutually
exclusive. Tankard (2001) even suggested taking just two frames in order to reach acceptable
levels of intercoder reliability.
Second, to achieve good reliability restrict the coders’ need to interpret the material to a
minimum. Simple yes/no questions seem to work out the best. Semetko and Valkenburg
(2000; see also d’Haenens & de Lange, 2001) made up a list of questions—such as, “Does
Van Gorp -- 20
the story suggest that some level of the government is responsible for the issue/problem?” —
in order to identify a number of generic frames in the news. Although such questions require
some interpretation, those researchers reported good levels of reliability.
Excellent coding instructions are indispensable. Therefore, and third, provide for
sufficient time to train coders. To rephrase this advice in framing terminology: training
sessions are used to bring to coders’ minds the cognitive schemas that are in line with the
propositional content of the frame. The best results seem to be attained when only two
coders are able to do all the work. During the training they write down memos of their
coding experiences and discuss them thoroughly. After coders reach satisfactory agreement
on coding protocols they can commence to independently code the complete sample.
Fourth, do not expect to reach a high level of coder agreement for framing devices that
are only occasionally applied in a text. This is especially so when using Cohen’s kappa,
which overcorrects for chance agreement when the distribution of the categories (present –
not present) diverges from 50/50 (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). Therefore, try to
focus on framing devices that are regularly used in texts, such as lexical choices and
metaphors. However, these framing devices may turn out to be not the strongest indicators to
identify a frame. For instance, in a frame analysis of asylum seekers I expected that the
lexical choice of ‘asylum seeker’ would be a negative portrayal, as if asylum seekers ask for
something they are not entitled to. This contrasts with the notion of ‘refugee,’ which evokes
a positive and legitimate connotation (Kaye, 2001). Ultimately, this hypothesis was rejected
because both terms were equally applied in the news, both in which asylum seekers were
portrayed as innocent victims as well as in stories which implicitly portrayed them as
intruders (Van Gorp, 2005).
Step 2: Look for clusters in the coded devices. Instead of formulating a coding
instruction for each framing device and reasoning device separately, it is worth considering
Van Gorp -- 21
the possibility of simultaneously coding those framing devices. This means that coders
should be trained to recognize the framing and reasoning devices and to code not for the
individual devices but for the frame package as a whole (see Van Os, Van Gorp, & Wester,
2008). In that way this second step of the deductive phase could be skipped. However, to
find out to what extent the elements within the identified frame packages actually constitute
clusters, held together by a latent frame, an exploratory cluster or a factor analysis is
indispensable. The most convincing way to do that is by using coders that are blind to the
manner in which the distinct framing devices and reasoning devices on the coding sheet refer
to the core frame. The coders determine whether an unordered list of characteristics shows
up in a text. Afterwards, a factor analysis is applied to ascertain that the variables relate to
some underlying dimensions. Ideally, these underlying dimensions should correspond to the
predefined frames.
For example, Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) used a factor analysis (principal
components, varimax rotation) to determine whether the underlying questions reflect the
presence of the frame in the study material. Matthes and Kohring (2008) applied a
hierarchical cluster analysis by which they identified clusters of topics, definitions, causal
attributions, moral and treatment evaluations with regard to biotechnology.
An alternative method is provided by multiple dimensional scaling (Van Gorp, 2005).
A homogeneity analysis generates a plot by calculating for each framing or reasoning device
coordinates on at least two dimensions. The distance between the devices indicates the
strength of their relationship. Devices that occur regularly simultaneously within one text are
plotted close to each other, whereas devices that do not show up simultaneously in any of the
texts are plotted far apart. Subsequently, it is possible to determine whether or not the frame
packages stand for actual clusters of textual elements. Graphical representations of factors
can be helpful to succeed in the final evaluation of the frame matrix. If the factor or cluster
Van Gorp -- 22
analysis does not show the same underlying dimensions as assumed, the frame analyst can
reinterpret the elements that do form a factor and define some alternative frames.
Step 3: Considering the ‘weight’ of the frame packages. A next step consists of
determining the extent to which the identified frame packages are found in the data collection.
This step is taken by counting for each item the number of framing and reasoning devices that
belong to a particular frame package, as confirmed by the cluster analysis. The higher the
number the higher the chance the different devices within a particular text are able to evoke a
schema in the mind of the reader that is in line with the frame to which the devices refer.
The result of this calculation is a number of indexes per item in the data set that can be
used to determine whether only one frame dominates or whether multiple frames are encoded
in a (news) text. For instance, an analysis of the use of the intruder frame and the victim
frame in the Belgian press showed that in about 50% of the newspaper articles only one of
both frames was applied, whereas the other half of the sample held devices of both frames
(Van Gorp, 2005). Further, it is possible to compare averages and to determine, for instance,
in which kind of medium or in what period of time the application of the identified frames
comes into vogue, increases, diminishes, or fades away. In that respect, the analysis can offer
insight in frame attention cycles (Miller & Riechert, 2001).
In sum, the suggestion is simply to count the number of devices within a frame package
that shows up in a text. There are, however, at least three conceptual questions with which
the frame analyst has to deal with before doing the calculations. Each question engenders a
different approach. First, is it necessary to factor in the relative frequency of a single framing
device? Second, what to do with the relative position of the texts in the dataset, because
some texts may attract the attention more easily than others? Third, does a framing device
applied by the producer of the text, for instance a journalist, carry more weight than the
Van Gorp -- 23
devices that slip into the text because they are mentioned by a source, for instance an
interviewee? I will answer these questions in order, arguing from a theoretical point-of-view.
It is not necessary for a framing device to be frequently repeated in order to be capable
of activating a frame. Entman (2004, p. 6) argued that this is particularly true for frames that
are highly salient in a culture. Still, in other cases, the impact of a frame will stem from the
prominence and repetition of its framing devices. The strategic integration of a single
framing device can be sufficient to evoke a complex narrative of which, except that one
element, nothing is explicitly mentioned in the text (cf. Lippmann, 1922/1997). For instance,
stating that Saddam Hussein was even worse than Adolf Hitler sufficed for President George
Bush to explain what was going on in Iraq (The Museum at the George Bush Presidential
Library, 1990).
It seems reasonable to take into account the prominence of the particular framing and
reasoning devices in a news story. The difficulty, however, is to determine what stylistic
aspects are able to make a framing device more salient, because salience is not a
characteristic of a text but an attribution in the mind of the reader. One way to manage this is
to code, for each item in the data set, the extent to which demonstrable style characteristics
increase the chance that the framing devices become salient in the perception of the audience
member. For instance, a front-page newspaper article that is located ‘above the fold,’ has an
eye-catching headline, and is illustrated with photographs, receives a higher score on the
scale than a small un-illustrated article at the bottom of the page. This scale score can be
used as a weight coefficient in further calculations for determining the prominence of the
frame package in the data set.
An additional weight coefficient that can be used to calculate the indexes is the source
of the framing devices. Sources make the news, perhaps particularly so when they disagree.
Some frames have been processed in communication utterances by frame sponsors and other
Van Gorp -- 24
actors, which is a matter of framing through the media (Van Gorp, 2007). In that instance it
may be unfair to conclude that a medium uses a particular frame. In order to make a
distinction between, for instance, the statements made by frame advocates and the journalistic
handling, the coders need to answer additional questions, such as whether or not the journalist
agrees with the point of view expressed by their sources. The affected framing devices may
then get a negative sign in the calculation. However, I personally hold the position that
framing devices originating from a source that are included in the news make a positive
contribution in the evocation of a frame. A statement or element originating from an external
source and the prominence the journalist gives to it in a news story are part of the framing
process and have to be included in the analysis regardless of its origin.
Conclusion
The title of this contribution suggests, first, that a distinctive characteristic of framing
analyses is that they are to a certain extent subjective; second, that it is advisable to phase out
this subjectivity; and, third, that it is possible to achieve this goal when certain procedures are
strictly followed. Some may even argue that this cultural approach to framing brings
subjectivity in rather than it takes subjectivity out, as the title suggests. Indeed, some degree
of subjectivity is inevitable. Moreover, in an inductive framing analysis, I strongly advise
researchers to make the most of the analysts’ gifts of observation and perceptive mind,
precisely to get a grip on the subtlety of some frames. In this first stage, reading between the
lines is permitted and even indispensable. In the next stage, however, additional procedures
have to be followed to take subjectivity out of the identification and to attain acceptable
levels of reliability.
Despite some useful exceptions (e.g., Kitzinger, 2007; Pan & Kosicki, 1993; Semetko
& Valkenburg, 2000; Tankard, 2001), the framing literature offers rather little on which to
draw to objectively identify frames. The procedures presented in this chapter are designed to
Van Gorp -- 25
aid framing researchers in conducing more systematic inquiry into the content of frames in
news stories.
Specifically, the main purpose of the technique is to gain insight into the simultaneous
manifestation of multiple textual characteristics that fit together. Here the main difference
with a linguistic approach such as discourse analysis is to be found. To determine how
framing devices and reasoning devices work together under the heading of an overarching
idea is the core of a framing analysis. Further, from the perspective of discourse analysis,
frames would stand for the interests of political and economic elites. As D’Angelo (2002)
argued, the constructionist approach does not link news framing to a form of media bias or
label it as contributing to hegemonic processes. Each frame provides a viewpoint that can
help to understand issues. Therefore, the aim of a framing analysis should always be to
identify a variety of alternative frames. When an important social issue is dominated by just
a single frame, there should be some alternatives that lead to a better understanding of what
the issue is about. Only in case multiple frames are identified framing becomes socially
relevant.
The procedures as expounded in this chapter, however, do have certain drawbacks.
The strategies put forward, particularly those for the inductive procedures, are difficult to
repeat, as Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) indicated, partly because they are based on
principles for qualitative research. Furthermore, the approach is time consuming, especially
because the researcher has to start with an inductive frame analysis in order to construct a
repertoire of frames. When advising graduate students, I impress them that a qualitative
framing analysis of a specific issue is both challenging and time-consuming. I tell them, as
well as undergraduate students, to begin a framing analysis with a limit number of news
articles in order to inductively reconstruct the applied frames. This is a valuable experience
Van Gorp -- 26
that familiarizes students with the framing approach. Going though the admittedly inductive
stage is necessary in order to then ‘take subjectivity out’ in later stages.
The idea that there is a cultural stock of frames and the goal of reliably reconstructing
those frames by means of a framing analysis ultimately underlies my conceptualization of
framing. Although an anonymous reviewer once ridiculed this idea a “Wal-Mart in the sky”
from which journalists and individuals would pick whatever frame they like, I still believe
that the identification of a repertoire of frames offers some opportunities. First, it is helpful
to gain new insights into the coverage of certain socially relevant issues in the news. Second,
it opens the door to alternative perspectives, which, in turn, can be used to convince
journalists that how they cover the news is not suggested by the events themselves, but rather,
by the result of their choices. The reason why journalists are unconsciously using frames is
that they are unfamiliar with alternatives to it. Third, a pluralistic repertoire of frames
implies a larger ‘tool-kit’ or a broader range of perspectives through which citizens
understand issues and events. Not only journalists, but also professional communicators,
policy makers, advocate groups, and scientists can be provided with alternative points of
view to communicate about an issue. By redefining the terms of the debate they can
constructively contribute to the public understanding of complex issues. Undocumented
immigration, poverty, and genetic engineering are only some of the issues that rank high on
the public agenda, which are so complex that they go beyond the understanding of lay people.
However, people require a clear explanation why things happen, partly because they want to
have the feeling that they can control their environment. Frames can help to fulfill this need.
Van Gorp -- 27
References
Aubrun, A. & Grady, J. E. (2006). Towards a cross-cultural simplifying model for food
systems: Findings from French talkback research. Brussels: King Baudouin Foundation.
Bateson, G. (1972), A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson, Steps to an ecology of mind:
A revolutionary approach to man’s understanding of himself (pp. 177–193). New York:
Ballantine Books. (Original work published in 1955).
Bartlett, F.C. (1964). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1932).
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An
overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Bennett, W. L., & Edelman, M. (1985). Toward a new political narrative. Journal of
Communication, 35(4), 156–172.
Berns, N. (2004). Framing the victim: Domestic violence, media, and social problems. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Bird, S. E. & Dardenne, R. W. (1997). Myth, chronicle and story: Exploring the narrative
qualities of news. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social meanings of news: A text reader (pp.
333–350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brewer, P. R. (2002). Framing, value words, and citizens explanations of their issue opinions.
Political Communication, 19, 303–316.
Cohen, S. (1976). Mods and rockers: The inventory as manufactured news. In S. Cohen & J.
Young (Eds.), The manufacture of news: Social problems, deviance, and the mass
media (pp. 226–241). London: Constable.
Coman, M. (2005). News stories and myth—the impossible reunion? In E. W. Rothenbuhler
& M. Coman (Eds.), Media anthropology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Van Gorp -- 28
Dahinden, U. (2002). Biotechnology in Switzerland: Frames in a heated debate. Science
Communication, 24, 184–197.
D’Angelo (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to
Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870–888.
Denzin, N. K., & Keller, C. M. (1981). Frame analysis reconsidered. Contemporary
Sociology, 10(1), 52–60.
d’Haenens, L., & de Lange, M. (2001). Framing of asylum seekers in Dutch regional
newspapers. Media, Culture and Society, 23, 847–860.
Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Edy, J. A., & Meirick, P. C. (2007). Wanted, dead or alive: Media frames, frame adoption,
and support for the war in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication, 57, 119–141.
Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives
of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6–28.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
Entman, R.M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign
policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communications paradigm: The case of public
moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51, 1–22.
Fisher, K. (1997). Locating frames in the discursive universe. Sociological Research Online,
2(3), Article 4. Retrieved May, 18, 2000, from
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/4.html
Gamson, W.A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Van Gorp -- 29
Gamson, W. A., & Lasch, K. E. (1983). The political culture of social welfare policy. In S. E.
Spiro & E. Yuchtman-Yaar (Eds.), Evaluating the welfare state: Social and political
perspectives (pp. 397–415). New York: Academic Press.
Gamson, W. A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social
construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373–393.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear
power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1–37.
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News,
Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon Books.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1971). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. (Original work published in 1967).
Goffman, E. (1975) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). A reply to Denzin and Keller. Contemporary Sociology, 10(1), 60–68.
Golding, P., & Middleton, S. (1982). Images of welfare: Press and public attitudes to poverty.
Oxford, UK: Martin Robertson.
Gurevitch, M., & Kavoori, A. P. (1994). Global texts, narrativity and the construction of local
and global meanings in television news. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 4(1-2),
9–24.
Handley, R. L. (2008, May). “This is a workfree smokeplace”: Public policy change and the
resilience of cultural frames. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Communication Association, Montréal, Canada.
Hartley, J. (1982). Understanding news. London: Methuen.
Hazelrigg, L. (1992). Reading Goffman’s framing as provocation of discipline. Human
Studies, 15, 239–264.
Van Gorp -- 30
Hertog, J. K., & McLeod, D. M. (2001) A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A
field guide. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life:
Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 139–161).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hitchcock, S. T. (2007). Frankenstein: A cultural history. New York: W. W. Norton &
Campany.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Dover Publications.
(Original work published in 1890).
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 47: 263–291.
Kaye, R. (2001). ‘Blaming the victim’: An analysis of press representation of refugees and
asylum-seekers in the United Kingdom in the 1990’s. In R. King & N. Wood (Eds.),
Media and migration: Constructions of mobility and difference (pp. 53–70). London:
Routledge.
Kitzinger, J. (2007). Framing and frame analysis. In E. Devereux (Ed.), Media studies: Key
issues and debates. Los Angeles: Sage.
Knight, P. (2000). Conspiracy culture: From Kennedy to “the X-Files”. New York:
Routledge.
Kruse, C. R. (2001). The movement and the media: Framing the debate over animal
experimentation. Political Communication, 18, 67–88.
Kubal, T. J. (1998). The presentation of political self: Cultural resonance and the construction
of collective action frames. The Sociological Quarterly, 39, 539–554.
Van Gorp -- 31
Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, morality, and politics or, why conservatives have left liberals in
the dust. Social Research, 62(2), 177–213.
Lippmann, W. (1997) Public opinion (2nd
ed.). New Brunswick: Transaction. (Original work
published in 1922).
Little, M. (2008, May 30). Canada blocks bid to outlaw ‘Frankentrees’. The Epoch Times, p.
1.
Lule, J. (2001). Daily news, external studies: The mythological role of journalism. New
York: Guilford Press.
Manoff, R. K., & Schudson, M. (1986). Reading the news. In R. K. Manoff & M. Schudson
(Eds.), Reading the news (pp. 3–8). New York: Pantheon Books.
Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving
reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58, 258–279.
Miller, M. M., & Riechert, B. P. (2001). The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance:
Mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, &
A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding
of the social world (pp. 107–121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
The Museum at the George Bush Presidential Library (1990). Remarks at a Republican party
fundraising breakfast in Burlington, Massachusetts 1990-11-01 (online). Retrieved June
2008 from
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=2379&year=1990&month=
11
Nelson, T. E, Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties
conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567–583.
Neuman, W. R., Just, M. R, & Crigler, A. A. (1992). Common knowledge. News and the
construction of political meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Van Gorp -- 32
Nisbet, M. C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public
support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17,
90–112.
Pan, Z., Lee, C-.C., Man Chan, L., & So, C. Y. K. (1999). One event, three stories: Media
narratives of the handover of Hong Kong in cultural China. Gazette, 61, 99–112.
Pan, Z. P., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse.
Political Communication, 10, 55–75.
Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content
analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258–284.
Propp, V. J. (1958). Morphology of the folktale. Bloomington: Indiana University. (Original
work published in 1928).
Roeh, I. (1989). Journalism as storytelling, coverage as narrative. American Behavioral
Scientist, 33(2), 162–168.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication,
49(1), 103–122.
Schudson, M. (1989). How culture works: Perspectives from media studies on the efficacy of
symbols. Theory and Society, 18, 153–180.
Schutz, A. (1964), On multiple realities. In A. Schutz, A., Collected papers (Vol. 1). Den
Haag: Martinus Nijhoff. (Original work published in 1945).
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis
of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109.
Silverblatt, A., Ferry, J., & Finan, B. (1999). Approaches to media literacy: A handbook.
Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Spivack, M. S. (2008, April 29). Bethesda Zoning Dispute is case of Goliath vs., well,
Goliath. The Washington Post, p. B01.
Van Gorp -- 33
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded Theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review,
51(2), 273–286.
Swidler, A. (1995). Cultural power and social movements. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans
(Eds.), Social movements and culture (pp. 25–40). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Tankard, J. W. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In S. D. Reese,
O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our
understanding of the social world (pp. 95–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: The
Free Press.
Van den Bulck, H., Simons, N., & Van Gorp, B. (2008). Let's drink and be merry: The
framing of alcohol in the prime time American youth series The OC. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol and Drugs, 69(6).
Van Gorp, B. (2005). Where is the frame? Victims and intruders in the Belgian press
coverage of the asylum issue. European Journal of Communication, 20, 485–508.
Van Gorp, B. (2006). Framing asiel: Indringers en slachtoffers in de pers. Leuven: Acco.
Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in.
Journal of Communication, 57, 60–78.
Van Gorp, B., Blow, H., & Van de Velde, M. (May, 2005). Representation of poverty in TV
reports in Belgium: Who is to blame? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, New York.
Van Os, R., Van Gorp, B., & Wester, F. (2008). Successful joint venture or out of control?
Framing Europe on French and Dutch websites / Une intreprise commune réussi ou
Van Gorp -- 34
non? Cadrer l'Europe sur les sites web français et hollandais (on line).
Electronic Journal of Communication / La Revue Electronique de Communication,
18(1).
Watson, J. (1998). Media communication: An introduction to theory and process. London:
McMillan.
Wicks, R. H. (2005). Message framing and constructing meaning: An emerging paradigm in
mass communication research. In P. Kalbfleish (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 29 (pp.
333–360). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Gorp -- 35
Table 1
Framing and Reasoning Devices in a Newspaper Article About Poverty
Source text Framing devices Reasoning devices
[…] The Christians and
the crack addicts meet for
breakfast every Thursday
in a downtown park. […]
Contrast of actors:
Christians vs. crack
addicts; description of
visual scene: heaving
breakfast as an everyday
activity
It is not a happy scene.
Sadly, it is too familiar.
[…]
Emotional appeal:
sadness, compassion
‘Familiar’ refers to
omnipresence of poverty
But here in B[ritish]
C[olumbia]’s bible belt,
feeding the poor and the
afflicted is cause for
concern. […]
Context: bible belt refers
to the ascetic Protestants.
Lexical choice: afflicted
Feeding the poor as iconic
and ultimate act of charity
“Cheerios build
relationships.” According
to others, Cheerios cause
trouble. […]
Symbol / synecdoche: A
brand of cereals is used as
‘pars pro toto’, a symbol
for charity
Seemingly illogical causal
relationship between
harmless charity and
problems
The place is overrun with
pushers and drug users.
[…]
Lexical choices: overrun,
pushers, and drug users
Drug users cause problems
just by being there (no
actual examples of they
causing trouble are given);
Van Gorp -- 36
do drug users belong to
the poor people?
Even with its stunning
scenery, the mountains
and the rich farmland that
surround it, it is like any
other community in
Canada: Threatened by
drug user use and
uncomfortable with the
rising tide of homeless.
Description of visual
scene with contrast: idyllic
scenery vs. misery;
metaphor ‘rising tide’ that
refers to an unstoppable
overwhelming force
Drug users but also
homeless people are
perceived as threatening
Note. From “Please don’t feed the homeless,” by B. Hutchinson, May 24, 2008, National
Post, pp. A7, A8.
Van Gorp -- 37
Table 2
Overview of Cultural Frames
Type of frame Examples of frames Example of application
Metaphor the building, the runaway
train, the flood, the game,
war, disease and recovery
Current food production methods
undermine the foundations of the
food system which puts the
worldwide ecological system at risk
(Aubrun & Grady, 2006)
Value or norm altruistic democracy,
responsible capitalism (Gans,
1979); free speech vs.
disruption of public order
(Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley,
1997); good governance,
sacredness of life
All people have equal rights, so the
same is true for gay people, for
example with regard to marriage
and the adoption of children.
Perceived from the idea that only
what is ‘natural’ is normal, gay
people or abnormal and cannot
claim equal rights (Brewer, 2002)
Virtue or sin sexual restraint, temperance,
satisfaction with one’s lot,
“punishment can be good for
you” (Lakoff, 1995)
People who get drunk do not have
the power to exercise self control,
this internal evil has to be
overcome (cf. Van den Bulck,
Simons, & Van Gorp, 2008)
Myth the myth of science, the
American dream, the pact
with God, the Apocalypse,
Biotechnology will lead to
catastrophes, just as Pandora
opened the box that contained all
Van Gorp -- 38
Oedipus, the Tower of Babel,
the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah, Pandora’s box,
good vs. evil, heaven and hell
(see Silverblatt, Ferry, &
Finan, 1992)
the evils of mankind (Dahinden,
2002). Scientists who do stem cell
research destroy human life. They
take on the role of God and violate
divine will (Nisbet, 2005)
Narrative man’s inhumanity to man
(Gurevitch & Kavoori, 1994);
Cinderella, Frankenstein,
Snow white, the Beauty and
the Beast, Faust
The cigarette brought the smoker to
a higher-class position, but with the
workplace smoking ban, smoking
‘Cinderella’ would loose her class
position (Handley, 2008)
Archetype the victim, the villain, the
hero, the donor (Propp,
1928/1958); the Good Mother
(Lule, 2001); the angry wife,
the invisible, the wise one,
the merciless warrior
Mods and rockers, two youth
cultures from the sixties, became
synonymous with villains, from the
moment the British press used a
melodramatic vocabulary to portray
the youngsters as a mob of “folk
devils” that “besieged” and
“destroyed” a small coastal village
(Cohen, 1976)
Stereotype a deep distrust of anything
official (Knight, 2000); the
foreigner as barbarian,
women as being helpless, the
innocent child, the stingy
In women’s magazines the victims
are blamed for domestic violence,
first, because, the women seem to
provoke the abuse, and, second,
because it is a matter of courage to
Van Gorp -- 39
Dutchman get out the abusive relationship
(Berns, 2004).
View publication statsView publication stats