Conceptualizing the Notion of Framing as a Process

As noted above, an understanding of framing as an object has been dealt with by identifying the different types of frames. Thus answers the question, what is a frame? We must now turn to the second step in the literature review, conceptualizing the notion of framing as a process.

In this step, I deal with the question: How is a frame constructed?

As noted above, framing as an object and framing as a process are very much intertwined in each scholarly definition. For instance, in identifying an emphasis frame as a framing type, the process through which an emphasis frame is constructed has already to some extent been revealed. An emphasis frame increases the salience of certain information, initiating the passive accessibility process, whereby an individual is able to easily access the information that was made salient. As a result, the individual’s judgements are influenced by the salient information.

The overall effect is that the individual was influenced by the emphasis frame.

Similarly, the process through which an equivalency frame is constructed was revealed.

Logically equivalent information are presented in different ways, one of which has a

significantly larger influence on the audience. This is often achieved when evaluative words are used which offer positive evaluations in comparison to their negative counterparts, i.e unemployment vs employment; lives saved vs lives lost. When such logically equivalent information is used to influence an individual’s judgement, an equivalency frame was used.

While these processes offer some insight into the construction of a frame, it is not enough to consider the relevant questions satisfactorily answered. I proceed with my review by focusing on the processes involved in emphasis framing. When comparing the three types of framing, emphasis framing appears to be the broadest classification and as such, its conceptualization as an object and as a process warrants the most attention. Therefore, I continue this paper by looking specifically at the conceptualization of emphasis framing as a process, and later specifying how emphasis frames can be considered a strategic maneuver. For the remainder of this chapter, I must then ask the question: What communicative devices are used to construct an emphasis frame?

In an attempt to unearth the answer to this question I refer to Gamson & Modigliani (1989) as they suggest five devices that signify the use of frames: metaphors, examples, catchphrases, depictions and visual images. This is similar to Entman’s suggestion that “by providing, repeating and thereby reinforcing words and visual images”, salience is achieved (1991, p. 7). Such communicative devices are valuable in understanding the process through which a frame is constructed as we can begin to see what is in a frame.

An additional valuable insight from Entman concerns the various locations of a frame in a text. According to Entman, there are four framing locations: the communicator, the text, the receiver, and the culture (1993, p. 52). The communicator makes “conscious or unconscious framing judgements in deciding what to say, guided by frames (often called schemata) that organize belief systems” (Entman 1993, p. 52). The text “contains frames, which are manifested by the presence or absence of certain key words, stock phrases and stereotyped images, sources of information, and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgments” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). With regards to the receiver, Entman understands this location to concern a receivers thinking and the frames that guide such thinking. The culture is

“the stock of commonly invoked frames” (Entman, 1993, p. 53). While Entman refers to the above elements as locations, I think it useful to interpret them as one of the steps involved in constructing a frame. For instance, Entman’s locations unearth a step by step process in which the communicator makes decisions relating to the information he or she chooses to relay, the text then demonstrates this information using certain communicative devices, this subsequently influence’s the audience, i.e. the receiver. The culture location does not fit perfectly in this

suggested step by step process. Admittedly, the suggestion to view framing locations as a step by step process does have its limits. However, it does appear to add value to Entman’s somewhat abstract understanding of location and contributes significantly to the conceptualization of framing as a process. Therefore, Entman’s culture location can be best included in this step by step construction as a valuable connection between the text and the receiver. A text relays the information that was chosen by the communicator and in doing so consults “the stock of most commonly invoked frames” in order to best influence the reciever.

This cultural guide therefore helps the author select the frames that can influence the “thinking of most people in the social grouping” (Entman, 1993, p. 53). Entman’s locations thus provide a preliminary understanding of how a frame comes to be constructed.

Also of interest to the conceptualization of framing as a process are the use of narratives in framing. Entman suggests “frames reside in the specific properties of the news narrative”

(1991, p. 7). Gamson and Modigliani make similar references to the story lines in frames that provide meaning (1987, p. 143). These narratives are made up of the various communicative devices that work together to construct a frame “render[ing] one basic interpretation more readily discernible, comprehensible and memorable than others” (Entman, 1991, p. 7). As a communicative phenomenon, narratives provide a depth of insight. Given the space limitation of this thesis, I am not able to go into further detail. However, it is important to acknowledge the role that narratives play in the process of frame construction.

To conclude, there lacks in the literature a complete theoretical apparatus that enables the analyst to understand the process through which a frame is constructed. Some answers can be found in the literature that relate to the question, what communicative devices are used to construct a frame? Processes like the passive accessibility process, evaluative judgements and pragmatic argumentation, shed light on how emphasis frames, equivalency frames and goal-frames work in practice. Similarly, multiple communicative devices involved in frame construction have been identified, e.g metaphors, examples, catchphrases, depictions and visuals (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989). Such devices answer the question, what is in a frame?

However, it is not enough to identify the communicative elements that are in frames. While important, they still fail to answer the question: how is a frame constructed?

The answers found in the literature are therefore hindered by a weak analysis that is unable to connect the communicative devices used to construct a frame. While some insights reveal ways of making certain information salient, this does not provide a satisfactory analysis of the process of constructing a frame. The conceptualization of the notion of framing as a process is therefore more scattered than that of the notion of framing as an object.