There are many phenomenon in the field of communication that bring with them mystery and ambiguity. In such cases, scholars develop multiple theories aiming to improve the clarity and understanding of the way in which we may make use of such phenomenon in a larger communication apparatus. It renders true, of course, that such phenomenon be attractive areas of study for scholars who wish to untangle the mystery. It’s a scholar’s archaeological excavation, if you will.
Perhaps there has never been a more mysterious and intriguing phenomenon than that of framing. In the field of communication, the notion of framing tends to be uttered with both disdain and awe. It is disdainful to many scholars because it is for all intense and purposes an unidentifiable object. In our academic circle, we struggle to make sense of this abstract notion, ultimately struggling to answer the question: what is a frame?
We can point to various reasons as to why framing has remained a fractured paradigm (Entman, 1993, p. 51). As noted above, by its very nature it is unidentifiable. Unlike other communicative phenomenon, such as different types of argumentation or specific presentational devices, framing is an overarching notion that transcends the former. It has an omnipresence amongst other communicative phenomenon. This omnipresence is exceptionally difficult to conceptualise. Nevertheless, there exists multiple frame theories that have aided in the search for clarity (Entman 1993; Druckman 2001; Tversky and Kahneman 1981, 1987). However, with every attempt to conceptualise the notion, the concept of framing becomes increasingly scattered. Entman (1993) expresses the need for a universal understanding of the concept if there is any hope in determining how framing works in argumentative reality.
In addition to the level of fracture that exists amongst academics, it is also essential to stress the extent to which the notion is used outside of scholarly discourse. It is not necessary to have studied communication in order to have come across the term ‘framing’ or ‘frame’.
Most commonly the term is used outside of scholarly discourse in the context of media framing.
For instance, it is common to come across an expression like “I hate the media because they are framing Megan Markel as an evil person”. I choose this expression as an example of how most people interpret the notion. Other examples include when someone says “Don’t tell them you want to quit. Frame it as a health issue”. Both examples aim to demonstrate how the term framing is frequently used outside of scholarly discourse. Interestingly, when it is used in these contexts, people grasp what is meant by the term immediately. For instance, with regards to the first expression, it is understood that the speaker is expressing disdain for the way in which
the media has portrayed Meghan Markel. With regards to the second expression, it is understood that the speaker is advising someone to manipulate the way in which an employer interprets someone leaving their job. Despite the fact that the notion experiences comprehension outside of scholarly discourse, inside the academic circle the conceptualisation is plagued by inconsistency.
1.1 Methodology and research question
Thus is the justification for a persistent search for clarity in order to better use the concept in scholarly discourse. I proceed in this thesis to answer the research question: How can framing be considered a strategic maneuver within the pragma-dialectical framework?
This research question was developed based on the existing conceptualisations of the notion of framing. It was discovered that while there are a multitude of definitions, there lacks a larger theoretical apparatus in which to base our understanding of the concept. As is explored in Chapter 2, multiple types of framing have been identified in the literature and there are valuable insights relating to the psychological effects of framing. However, the notion of framing is severely limited by its weak theoretical foundation. This thesis will therefore aim to remedy this limitation by situating framing within the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation.
The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is beneficial to the analysis of framing for many reasons. Pragma-dialectics is a relatively new theory of argumentation as it was only recently developed in the 1970s by Van Eemeren and Rob Grootendotst at the University of Amsterdam. Despite its youth, pragma-dialectics has established a large theoretical framework that enables the analyst to apply theoretical considerations to argumentative reality. This is immensely advantageous to a phenomenon an abstract phenomenon like framing. For this alone, pragma-dialectics presents itself as the most favorable theory in which to study framing.
Furthermore, pragma-dialectics developed an analytical tool that is most beneficial to the notion of framing. Strategic maneuvering was developed by Van Eemeren and Houtlosser in 2002. It was developed to further strengthen the connection between theoretical considerations and argumentative reality. Moreover, strategic maneuvering incorporates a delicate balance between reasonableness and effectiveness. This is also beneficial for the analysis of framing because strategic maneuvering enables the analyst to understand how framing works in a dialectical discussion, and how it is effective as an argumentative move. In addition, strategic
maneuvering is unique in that it involves the selection from the topical potential, the adaptation to audience demand and a manipulation of presentational devices. All three aspects are exceptionally beneficial to the conceptualization of framing as it will enable an analysis of a frame that takes into account multiple argumentative moves and functions. This is in line with framing’s status as an omnipresent phenomenon. Both the theoretical foundation and an analysis of its effectiveness in argumentative reality are required to establish a better conceptualization of framing. Thus is what is offered by the pragma-dialectical framework.
I note here that others have also approached framing from the pragma-dialectical perspective. Notably, an MA thesis published by the University of Amsterdam, written by Valinciute in 2013, has a similar aim to situate framing with the pragma-dialectical framework.
However, our approaches divert where it concerns strategic maneuvering. For Valinciute, strategic maneuvering is an analytical tool used to analyze frames in argumentative reality. In contrast, this thesis develops the hypothesis that framing can in itself be considered a coordinated set of strategic maneuvers, and is directly correlated to our understanding of a discussion strategy.
Furthermore, mention must be given to Van Poppel (2013), a pragma-dialectical scholar, whose work focuses on a specific type of framing, goal-framing. Van Poppel’s work is significant to my hypothesis as it demonstrates that framing is already, to some extent, incorporated into the pragma-dialectal theory. However, it is important to note here that my hypothesis relates to emphasis frames as opposed to goal-frames. As such, this thesis aims to fill a significant gap in the literature.
1.2 Outline
I proceed with this thesis by completing a literature review of the notion of framing. This is valuable to the later analysis as it establishes the current conceptualizations of the notion, identifying the valuable insights that have already been developed. This literature review differs from other literature reviews of framing as it distinguishes between two important elements. In Chapter 2, first, a conceptualization of framing as an object is required to determine the various ways in which people use the term ‘framing’ and ‘frames’. Second, a conceptualization of framing as a process is required to determine how a frame is believed to be constructed. Both are fundamentally important in understanding the notion of framing, but it is imperative that both elements be considered separately in order to identify the insights that
exist and find further gaps in the literature. As will be demonstrated, there is more ambiguity that exists with the notion of framing as a process as opposed to the notion of framing as an object. Hence why this thesis will outline how a frame is constructed via a coordinated set of strategic maneuvers.
Chapter 3 will outline my theoretical approach, first detailing why pragma-dialectics is beneficial to the analysis of framing, with an overview of strategic maneuvering. Proceeding this, I will outline my hypothesis, that framing can be considered as a coordinated set of strategic maneuvers, otherwise called a discussion strategy. I will conclude this chapter by presenting a selection of small case studies, demonstrating how framing emerges as a discussion strategy in each discussion stage.
Finally, in Chapter 4, I present an extended analysis of a KLM press release. I begin to demonstrate my hypothesis with the small case studies in Chapter 3. However, in order to give my hypothesis increasing validity, it is important that I demonstrate how framing as a set of coordinated strategic maneuvers works in consecutive discussion stages in one text. For this analysis, I chose the KLM press release of 1999, in which KLM, a Dutch airline, responds to a scandal in an attempt to improve its image. It is identified in this analysis that KLM frame themselves as an innocent third party within the discussion. In this analysis, I will demonstrate the process through which this frame was constructed, taking a pragma-dialectical approach to the analysis of the critical discussion.
2. CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE NOTION OF FRAMING: A LITERATURE