Framing the participatory society: discrepancies between interpretation frames and media frames
A constructivist approach striving towards validity and reliability in framing research Michael Hameleers
University of Amsterdam
Research master’s thesis Author: Michael Hameleers Student number: 5873347
Supervisor: Prof. dr. Rens Vliegenthart Date of submission: 27-06-2014
Abstract
This research introduces a methodological framework striving towards a valid and reliable analysis of media frames and interpretation frames responding to recent calls in the literature, which suggest (1) to acknowledge the social-cultural context and power relationships
underlying the framing process (2) to consider frames as a cluster of frame-elements and reasoning devices and to (3) identify interpretation frames and media frames using a similar analytical approach to ensure a valid comparison of the outcomes of both interrelated framing processes. In four different studies on the framing process involved in the interpretation of and news coverage on the Dutch participatory society, the introduced methodological framework was validated departing from a social-constructivist viewpoint. The research question and hypotheses focussed on the media effects of framing and the discrepancies between media frames and interpretation frames on the participatory society. It was found that the discrepancy between interpretation frames and media frames revolved around the distinction between bottom-up and top-down frames. Moreover, the media discourse emphasised more trust in citizens’ initiatives than citizens articulated themselves. As most salient media effect of framing, psychological reactance occurred as resistance strategy when citizens were exposed to top-down definitions of the participatory society. Framed definitions removing freedom of choice for citizens resulted to more resistance towards the participatory society than frames that allowed more freedom of choice. An important practical
recommendation for policy makers is to overcome the dominant sources of resistance to the participatory society highlighted in citizens’ interpretation frames by emphasising that the government will not leave its citizens to their fate and will not force citizens to participate more in society if they are not able to do so.
Acknowledgements
The findings presented in this Research Master’s thesis resulted from an intensive
cooperation between the University of Amsterdam (ASCoR), Veldkamp and TNS NIPO. Based on their interest to develop a scientifically based measurement tool for the
identification of individual interpretation frames, the aforementioned parties requested me to develop a method to identify interpretation frames during my ASCoR research participation. During my Research Master’s thesis, I aimed to validate this tool on the topic of the Dutch participatory society. Again, Veldkamp and TNS NIPO cooperated with me during this phase of the study. Therefore, I want to acknowledge the contribution of researchers within these organisations. My special appreciation first goes to Dieter Verhue and Yolanda Schothorst working as researchers at Veldkamp. They supervised and hosted me during my research participation. Furthermore, they provided me access to rich sources of validly and reliably collected data and offered me constructive feedback during the analysis of these data. Second, I would like to thank Peter Kanne and Tim de Beer working as researchers at TNS NIPO for their support in collecting high quality quantitative data and their constructive feedback provided during my research participation. Last but not least, my appreciation goes out to Rens Vliegenthart, who acted as supervisor during my research participation and thesis-writing phase. Not only did he provide me with excellent feedback, he also contributed to the fruitful cooperation between ASCoR, Veldkamp and TNS NIPO.
Table of contents
Introduction 1
The sender-side of framing: media frames and their operationalization 3 The receiver-side of framing: interpretation frames in the public discourse 6 Bridging the gap: framing as interactive practice between sender and receiver 8 Methodological framework based on framing measurement tool 12 Study 1: Qualitative inductive analysis of interpretation frames 14
Study 2: Quantitative content analysis of media frames 23
Study 3: Quantitative analysis of interpretation frames 28 Study 4: Assessing the framing as media effects paradigm 34
Overall conclusion and discussion 38
References 41
Appendix A: Materials used for the data collection and data analysis of study 1 47 Appendix B: Materials used for the data collection and data analysis of study 2 68 Appendix C: Materials used for the data collection and data analysis of study 3 81 Appendix D: Materials used for the data collection and data analysis of study 4 89
Introduction
During the King’s speech the 17th of September 2013, the Dutch government introduced the participatory society as a new form of society intended to replace the classical Dutch welfare state. On behalf of the Dutch government, King Willem-Alexander argued that Dutch citizens should not only contribute to their own lives, but to their society as a whole as well
(Rijksoverheid, 2013). In the participatory society, each Dutch citizen who is able to participate will be asked to take more responsibility in this society, especially regarding participation in community care and social security. Following the King’s speech, the word “participatiesamenleving” (Dutch for participatory society) received the award for word of the year in 2013. Despite the extensive attention for the term in both media and public discourse, the participatory society as introduced by the Dutch government is not a novel development. Former Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende already used the term in 2005. Moreover, the “Big Society” as introduced by the British government in 2010 is an international example of the principle of the participatory society.
By introducing the participatory society in a certain way, selecting some aspects of this societal development and making them more salient in a communication text, King Willem-Alexander’s speech involved the process of framing (Entman, 1993). Framing the participatory society in the King’s speech entailed that a particular problem definition for the societal development was foregrounded, as well as a causal interpretation highlighting the causes for a shift from the classical welfare state to the participatory society. By stating that Dutch citizens should contribute more to their society as a whole, a certain moral evaluation was emphasised. Finally, by arguing that citizens should increase their participation in different fields of society, a recommendation on how to treat the participatory society from the receivers’ point of view was put forward. In other words, all four elements constituting a frame were present in the King’s speech (Entman, 1993). Zooming in on the participatory society introduced in the King’s speech, this study focuses on how the Dutch participatory society is framed, both from the perspective of Dutch citizens and from the perspective of the sender reporting on the participatory society in the media discourse.
Framing research in communication science traditionally focused on the sender-side of communication, predominantly by employing a quantitative or qualitative content analysis to distil frames out of media content (e.g., Tankard, 2001; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). Carragee & Roefs (2004) argue that this traditional approach neglects the origins of frames. In their opinion, framing research should be related to underlying socio-cultural processes, since the distribution of power in society influences both the interpretation and construction
of frames. In this reading, framing is defined as a process of social reality construction that involves both receivers of news stories and senders of these stories. Since social reality is constructed within a specific meaning-loaden context, the interpreting receiver of frames should be assigned a central role in the analysis of frames (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989).
Besides the lack of empirical research on the integration of the receiver side in the framing process, previous studies are not conclusive on how frames should be
operationalized in a valid and reliable way (Matthes & Kohring, 2008). Reviewing five prevalent approaches in framing research, Matthes and Kohring point to two major issues for reliability and validity. First, inductive interpretative framing approaches lack reliability. Predominantly, these approaches provide no transparency in how frames were extracted from the data. Furthermore, these approaches are frequently based on an identification of frames as one single entity by coders. This implies that the identification of a set of frames in the text is an arbitrary practice, which harms the reliability and validity of the analysis (Tankard, 2001).
Second, deductive and systematic computer-assisted approaches lack validity. As frames are embedded in both media and public discourse, the extraction of frames cannot be reduced to a set of computer-coded variables. Furthermore, the deductive approach is limited since it presupposes that all frames are known beforehand, which overlooks the identification of novel frames that are not known by the researchers.
The general conclusion that can be drawn after reviewing literature on framing research is that a clear conceptualisation of the complete interactive framing process and its embeddedness in public discourse is still lacking (e.g., Entman, 1993; Scheufele, 1999; Carragee & Roefs, 2004). This study therefore aims to fill the aforementioned knowledge gaps in the literature on framing research in at least two ways. First, responding to
conceptualisations and suggestions for future research by Matthes & Kohring (2008) and Van Gorp (2007a), a standardised method for the analysis of sender-side media frames and
receiver-side interpretation frames that strives towards validity and reliability is introduced in this study. Second, this method is validated by analysing how the Dutch participatory society is framed by Dutch news media and interpreted from the frame of reference of Dutch
citizens. The general aim of this study is therefore to explore the discrepancy between interpretation frames and media frames using a systematic method of framing analysis in the context of the participatory society. The central research question that taps into this aim reads as follows: To what extent is the participatory society framed differently in the media
To precisely study the discrepancy between media frames and interpretation frames, four studies will be conducted. In the first study, interpretation frames will be analysed qualitatively. In the second study, frames operating in the media discourse will be identified quantitatively. The third study extrapolates the identification of interpretation frames to a quantitative cluster analysis, which offers a further validation of the measurement instrument introduced in this study. The fourth study examines the media effects of framing by assessing the effects of experimentally manipulated framed definitions of the participatory society on citizen’s attitudes towards this societal development.
The sender-side of framing: media frames and their operationalization
The process of framing entails a reconstruction of social reality in meaningful patterns of interpretation resonating in cultural values shared by both sender and receiver (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). These patterns of interpretation manifest themselves in a communication text as storylines and organising ideas, which guide both the receiver and the sender of communication in their process of making sense of news events (Huang, 2010). More practically defined, media frames can be regarded as a tool for journalists to structure and organise reality for the interpreting audience of communication texts (Tuchman, 1978).
An important question for the analysis of the framing process is how frames can be identified validly in a text. Entman’s (1993) conceptualisation of frames as consisting of four distinct elements provides more insight in how frames manifest themselves in communication texts. First, frames promote a particular problem definition by highlighting what the issue is about, what the costs and benefits of the issue might be and what actors are involved in the issue. Second, the causal evaluation emphasises the causes and effects of the issue and promotes who is responsible for these causes and effects. Third, the moral evaluation of the problem evaluates the causes and effects and connects these to moral values and norms familiar in the cultural context. Finally, the treatment recommendation suggests potential solutions to the problem.
Two important preconditions need to be emphasised concerning this fourfold operationalization of framing. First, not necessarily all four frame-elements have to be present in a text. Second, by referring to the problem definition and causes of the problem, the issue that is framed should not necessarily connote the meaning of a “problem”. The participatory society as issue can be perceived as a problem reasoned from one perspective, while another perspective on the participatory society regards it as a solution to the
Entman (1993) argues that all four above mentioned elements of frames can be embedded in four different locations. First, frames are manifestly embedded in
communicating texts as stereotypes, key words, information sources and sentences that refer to a certain problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation or treatment
recommendation. Second, frames are embedded in the receiver’s interpretation. Frames that guide receivers’ interpretations can either be consonant or dissonant with the frames
embedded in the text. Third, from his or her socio-cultural position, the sender of a communication text, for example the journalist, makes both conscious and unconscious decisions on what aspects of a perceived social reality will be selected and made salient in a communication text. The final location in which frames manifest themselves is in the cultural context of the communicative process. This context contains a stock of frames reflecting shared cultural values and norms of a social group.
The operationalization of the framing concept can be taken to a further level of specificity by regarding the four elements and locations as a “frame package” embedded in a communication text (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; van Gorp, 2007b). By reconstructing the frame package in a text, the frame can be identified in a systematic and objective way. The frame package consists of three different parts that together represent the frame. First, the manifest framing devices in a text refer to arguments, visual images of the issue, examples of the issue, metaphors and word choice. These framing devices can be coded in a text as manifest characteristics of the frame package (van Gorp, 2007b). The cement that holds the manifest framing devices together is the frame itself, which provides an overarching meaning structure to the manifest components of the frame.
Second, at a more latent level, frames consist of reasoning devices (Gamson &
Modigliani, 1989; Van Gorp, 2007a). These reasoning devices reflect the four elements of the frame as conceptualised by Entman (1993). The reasoning devices in a text can be identified as the aggregate of implicit and explicit references that promote a particular problem
definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation. Third, as frames are embedded in cultural contexts, they reflect broader cultural themes shared by the receiver and sender of frames. Therefore, the third component of a frame reflects implicit cultural phenomena (Van Gorp, 2007b). This component is more difficult to code in an objective way, since it requires the coder to be familiar with the underlying cultural values, norms and stereotypes. Moreover, attaching these cultural phenomena to a frame package is an arbitrary practice that largely depends on researchers’ interpretation.
Reflecting on the above-presented operationalization of framing put forward in previous studies, the main focus of this study will be to (1) systematically identify reasoning devices as frame-elements and to (2) reconstruct these elements into frame packages, both as media frames and interpretation frames on the participatory society. Moreover, the qualitative study aims to provide an in-depth understanding of the cultural values underlying frames. The measurement tool that is designed to identify frames in a systematic way based on the frame package approach will be outlined in detail in the method section.
The prospected outcome of the systematic approach to framing analysis outlined above is a variety of frames reflecting how social reality is constructed by media practices in interaction with the audience and cultural values (Scheufele, 1999). This targeted “variety of frames” implies that there is not just a single frame that describes the participatory society in the media discourse. Indeed, as Gamson & Modigliani (1989) argued, framing is a dialectical process. A dominant frame is a normative and conventional meaning structure of the issue at hand, whereas the counter frame challenges the dominant definition of the issue. However, both dominant frames on the participatory society and their challengers are constructed out of the same socio-cultural resources of Dutch society. Therefore, dominant frames and their challengers should not necessarily present completely different views on the issue but may be congruent on some aspects of frame-elements.
Besides the distinction between dominant frames and counter frames, frames differ in the extent to which they emphasise and select a generic or issue-specific definition of the problem. Issue specific frames relate exclusively to specific events or issues (de Vreese, 2005). Issue specific frames can therefore not be interpreted independently from the social-cultural context from which they are constructed. Generic frames, on the other hand, can be attached to different issues and events. Examples of generic frames are the “conflict frame” and the “human impact” frame (Neuman, Just & Crigler, 1992). This study takes on an intermediate perspective by striving towards the identification of issue-specific frames while at the same time acknowledging the existence of overarching generic frames independent of the participatory society, such as the principle of inequality in specific power relations. In this view, issue-specific frames and generic frames are not regarded as completely distinct
constructs but might overlap on some aspects of the frame. Based on this overlap, issue-specific frames may be grouped under overarching, second-order generic frames.
To explain the variety of frames operating in the media discourse, the process of framing needs to be linked to broader social and political processes (Snow, Vliegenthart & Corrigall-Brown, 2007). Frames are formed in an interactional field of power relations, in
which different frame sponsors and social movements compete for dominance of (symbolic) meanings reflected in frames (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Carragee & Roefs, 2004). According to Carragee and Roefs, the variety of frames resonating in the media discourse reflects both the hegemony of elites and the agency of challengers of the dominant meanings. Dominant sponsors of the hegemony support the established political order by diffusing dominant values and meanings as frames through the social institutions of the media. However, these dominant voices are not uncontested. Meanings embedded in social and political discourse are contested to the extent that social movements and individuals challenge the dominant frames with counter frames. This challenge is based on an unequal distribution of political, social and cultural capitals, which implies that frame sponsors, who have more resources at their disposal, are more dominant in the production and diffusion of meanings since they have more access to the journalistic discourse. The variety of dominant and challenger or counter frames in media discourse therefore reflects broader power
relations based on unequal access to symbolic, cultural and political capitals. This view is in line with the social-constructivist approach to framing research taken in this study.
The receiver-side of framing: interpretation frames resonating in the public discourse As epistemological stance, social constructivism views the audience as consisting of active, meaning constructing participants who interpret and make sense of their social world in interaction with their social environment (Wicks, 2001; Holstein & Gubrium, 1995). Social constructivism as approach in communication science emphasises that the media may interpret and emphasise issues in a different way compared to the active meaning-constructing receivers of these issues (Neuman et al., 1992).
Former literature differs in the locus of power devoted to media makers versus receivers in the process of framing. Some authors argue that receivers choose from a variety of persistent frames that are made available to them by the media (e.g., Reese, 2001). In this reading, media makers are powerful in the sense they control the social reality construction process of receivers by forcing them to choose from a limited number of alternative
interpretations. A relevant question is if framing is indeed as powerful as suggested in the “powerful media effects paradigm” (McQuail, 2010). Some authors challenge this paradigm by viewing receivers as possessing more agency, constructing their own interpretation of issues in interaction with media makers and other social influences, rather than being
controlled by powerful media forces (e.g., Scheufele, 1999). This study ties in with the latter reading by emphasising that both media makers and receivers are part of the interpretation
process underlying framing, reconstructing their vision on reality out of the same stock of social and cultural resources at hand. This study focuses on differences and similarities between frames on both sides. Therefore, the process of meaning construction underlying framing is studied as the difference in perspectives manifested between sender and receiver.
As early as 1938, Merton argued that individuals in society hold an aspirational frame of reference, which forms a crucial component for society (Merton, 1938). Merton describes that culturally defined goals, interests and purposes construct the aspirational frame of reference, which is a principal component of social structure. Despite this early
conceptualisation of frames on the receiver-side, there is no clear consensus on the
terminology and definitions applied to refer to these interpretation frames (Van Gorp, 2007b). Some authors explicitly refer to the term “audience frame” or “frame of reference” (e.g., Merton, 1938; Scheufele, 1999). In social psychology literature, individual frames are referred to as “cognitive mental structures” (Minsky, 1975) or “schemata” (Fiske & Taylor, 1975). These definitions have in common that frames are regarded as existing internal to the individual. Other authors view frames of existing external to the individual as a “stock of frames” connected with cultural values, norms and stereotypes (e.g., Goffman, 1981; Entman, 1993; Van Gorp, 2007b). Reasoned from this perspective, stocks of frames seem to be “out there” in social reality as an external truth that can be analysed independently from its social reality constructors.
Reasoned from these divergent definitions, the paradox in previous literature on the receiver-side of framing is that on one hand, framing is regarded from a social-constructivist perspective as the result of interpretation and meaning making of cultural actors while at the other hand, frames are viewed as external to the individual and should therefore be analysed independently from the actors as part of cultural resources. This latter perspective is more in line with a positivist than a social-constructivist approach. This study takes on an
intermediate perspective on the receiver-side of framing by acknowledging the power of frames to propose a preferred reading of the participatory society while at the same time assigning a central role to the agency of citizens. In this reading, receivers are viewed as individuals who process information in a motivated way instead of accepting or rejecting media frames on the participatory society (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989).
The view on framing adopted in this study is in line with a body of recent literature on receivers’ ability and motivation to resist persuasive attempts by employing different
strategies of resistance (e.g., Ahluwalia, 2000; Zuwerink Jacks & Cameron, 2003). Regarding framing as persuasive communication, these strategies imply that if citizens encounter frames
that are dissonant from their own attitudes towards the participatory society, they have a variety of strategies at their disposal to resist or negotiate the meaning of frames presented in the media discourse. This view is in line with the psychological theory of cognitive
dissonance (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007).
Citizens are not only active in resisting frames that counter their attitudes and accepting frames that are consistent with their attitudes, they construct their own individual interpretation of issues drawing on alternative cultural and mental resources as well. The following section aims to integrate views on both the receiver side of (interpretation) framing and the sender side of (media) framing as an interactive practice rooted in both public and media discourse.
Bridging the gap: framing as interactive practice between sender and receiver Entman (1993) argued that the dominant frame embedded in communication texts on a certain issue should be congruent with the most common interpretation frames among receivers. However, Neuman et al. (1992) found that media frames and audience frames are not by definition congruent and alternative frames not present in media coverage may resonate in the public discourse on a certain topic. In other words, not all frames are “out there” to be analysed directly from media content.
In line with this argument, Huang (2010) found that media frames spill over to audience frames, but receivers and senders of congruent frames not necessarily attribute the same weight to overlapping frames. Furthermore, Gamson and Modigliani (1989) argue that the interpretation of issues by citizens is influenced by a variety of different sources of information, which include predispositions, interpersonal communication, media discourse and public discourse. In this reading, the media discourse only provides one source of influence on citizens’ construction of interpretation frames on the participatory society among competing ones.
Despite these examples, the linkage between media frames and interpretation frames has not received extensive attention in empirical research on framing effects (Scheufele, 1999). To arrive at a better understanding of how media frames and interpretation frames interact, Scheufele (1999) promotes a process model of framing, which integrates frame building, frame setting, interpretation frames and media frames in a theoretical model that emphasises the feedback between media frames and interpretation frames. Building on Scheufele’s conceptualisation of framing as a cyclical process, the perspective on framing taken in this study acknowledges two divergent but interrelated processes of framing. First,
news media frame information on the participatory society in a certain way, selecting aspects of social reality and reconstructing these aspects in a salient way in texts on the participatory society (Goffman, 1974; van Gorp, 2007a; Entman, 1993). Second, Dutch citizens decode the framed communication text in a way that is meaningful for their frame of reference. If the media frame is congruent with their own viewpoint, citizens are expected to accept the frame as embedded in the communication text (Entman, 1993). However, if Dutch citizens are highly involved and the media frame is dissonant with their viewpoint on the participatory society, the media frame will be rejected or adjusted by the interpreting audience.
Following the process model of framing (Scheufele, 1999), framing can be positioned within the paradigm of media effects. In this reading, the media frame as independent
variable influences perspectives on social reality hold by the receiver of frames. In contrast to the way the power of frames is referred to in traditional literature on framing as media
effects, the two extremes of acceptance and rejection should not be regarded as the single two possible receivers’ reactions towards framing. As Hall (1973) postulated, three general
positions regarding the decoding of media content can be distinguished. First, the dominant-hegemonic position (Hall, 1973: 59) implies that the receiver of a message accepts the connoted meaning as encoded in the dominant media discourse. Second, the negotiated code or position (Hall, 1973: 60) describes a decoding stance of the receiver that is mixed
regarding acceptance and rejection of the connoted meanings. This position partly accepts the legitimacy of the dominant media discourse, but adapts it according to the situational context. The third hypothetical position concerns oppositional decoding of the message (Hall, 1973: 61). Reasoned from this position, the receiver completely rejects the connoted meaning encoded in the message.
The threefold conceptualisation of decoding positions hypothesised by Hall (1973) is in line with the empirical findings of Neuman et al. (1992), Gamson & Modigliani (1989) and Huang (2010). Informed by the conceptualisation of Hall (1973) and the empirical findings underlining the divergent positions towards frames, acceptance and rejection represent the two ends on a continuum of possible reactions towards each of the four elements that constitute a frame. Put differently, there is a great variety of ways in which citizens’
interpretation frames can differ from and be similar to media frames, which renders the media effects of framing difficult to predict. The expected similarities and differences in
interpretation versus media frames towards the Dutch participatory society can be depicted in the following research question: RQ: To what extent and how does the framing of the
participatory society differ between interpretation frames of citizens and media frames of Dutch news media?
Study 1, study 2 and study 3 are concerned with answering this research question. Study 1 aims to provide insight in the framing process from the perspective of the receiver by means of individual interviews, focus groups and a qualitative content analysis. By means of a quantitative content analysis, study 2 aims to provide insight in the media frames employed to frame the participatory society in Dutch newspapers. Study 3 is devoted to validate the inductively gathered interpretation frames of study 2 by means of a quantitative cluster analysis of interpretation frames.
To further study framing within the paradigm of media effects and to arrive at a better understanding of what processes and mechanisms underlie the potential similarities and differences between media frames and interpretation frames, at least two theories are relevant. The first theory, which provides insight in how frames influence the interpretation of societal problems, concerns the prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The prospect theory postulates that if the receiver of a message is confronted with two different options, one option entailing low risks of negative consequences and the other option entailing higher risks of negative consequences, the option that is preferred by the receiver depends on the way the message is framed (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012). If the frame emphasises losses of the issue, receivers are more willing to accept the riskier option to avoid the losses. If the frame however emphasises gains of the issue, receivers are more likely to go for the option that entails the least risk in order to secure the gains.
Second, similar to the prospect theory, the theory of psychological reactance may explain divergent reactions of citizens towards the participatory society. According to Burgoon, Alvara, Grandpre & Voulodakis (2002), each persuasive message can be interpreted by the audience as a threat to their freedom of choice. In case the receiver is presented with counter-attitudinal information, messages that threat freedoms of attitude or behaviours can result in psychological reactance on the receiver-side. When a freedom is threatened, individuals may experience the urge to reassure their freedom by engaging in the forbidden behaviour. Furthermore, the threatened freedom gains in attractiveness because it has become more rare when prohibited. Freedom of choice in the participatory is defined as the experienced freedom of citizens to decide for themselves if and to what extent they are willing and able to participate more in society. This freedom is removed if the government forces citizens to participate more in society. Extrapolating the theory of psychological reactance to the expected media effects of framing, it can be expected that if the participatory
society is framed in a way that removes freedom of choice for citizens by forcing this
development upon citizens, they will be more likely to reject the frame and engage in counter arguing. This expectation, which is in line with the conceptualisation of framing as media effects (e.g., Scheufele, 1999) and entails a powerful process of influencing alternatives for interpretation (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Carragee & Roefs, 2004), is hypothesised as follows: H1: The more freedom of choice is removed from a framed definition of the participatory society, the more likely the receiver is to counter argue the participatory society as societal development.
In line with conceptualisations presented by Scheufele (1999), Gamson & Modigliani (1989) and Merton (1938), it is expected that personal schemata, in this study operationalized as interpretation frames, are not only influenced by the media discourse, but reflect personal experiences, opinions and attitudes as well. Extrapolated to the participatory society, for which attitudes are highly politicalised and dependent on knowledge and involvement, it is expected that political preferences and educational level may partially explain the variety in interpretation frames. Higher educated people are expected to have more expertise on political engaging issues as the participatory society, which makes them less depending on media frames and less susceptible to framing effects than lower educated people (Druckman, 2004). Furthermore, they are likely to be more involved in political engaging issues than lower educated citizens, which influences the way the frame is processed (MacInnis & Jaworski, 1991). By processing frames via the central route to persuasion, higher educated citizens are more likely to draw upon their persuasion knowledge and counter-argue the media frames (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Therefore, interpretation frames of higher educated citizens are expected to differ stronger from the media frames compared to lower educated citizens: H2: The discrepancy between interpretation frames and media frames will be larger for higher educated citizens than for lower educated citizens.
Furthermore, it is expected that voting behaviour is congruent with the social-cultural values hold by citizens (DellaVigna & Caplan, 2007). More specifically, voters of left wing parties are expected to emphasise more counter-arguing to the participatory society compared to voters of right-wing parties, since left-wing voters aspire a greater presence of the
(welfare) state than right wing voters: H3: interpretation frames of voters of left wing parties emphasise stronger counter-arguing of the participatory society than voters of right wing parties
Reasoning from the framing as media effects paradigm (study 4), educational level and voting behaviour are hypothesised to influence the effects of divergent framing in the
following two ways: H4: Higher educated citizens’ reactions towards framing will be more balanced and less negative than reactions of lower educated citizens reactions towards framed definitions of the participatory society; H5: Voters of left wing parties are more supportive of top-down framed definitions of the participatory society compared to voters of right wing parties
The framing analysis in all four studies is based on a similar measurement instrument developed for this study. The characteristics of this framing measurement instrument, which aims to provide a valid measurement tool to test all aforementioned hypotheses, will be outlined in greater detail in the following section.
Methodological framework based on framing measurement tool
Responding to Matthes and Kohring’s (2008) suggestion for future research to integrate media frames and audience frames within a single methodological design that clusters manifest variables together as frames, a framing measurement tool was developed for this current research. The core underlying principle of this tool is that the comparison of media frames with interpretation frames can only be valid and meaningful if they are measured with a similar measurement instrument. Based on this premise, the framing measurement tool resulted from the five-step framing analysis procedure outlined below. This tool was initatilly developed in qualitative research and later extrapolated to quantitative (cluster) analyses.
The first step of analysis resembles open coding in the grounded theory approach (Bryman, 2012; Flick, 2009). Regarding the four frame-elements or reasoning devices problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment
recommendations as sensitising concepts, fragments in the transcripts that reflected these sensitising concepts were highlighted. Open codes were used to identify the participant with a number and to code the reasoning device that was captured in a certain fragment. For open coding, the option “comments” in the software package Microsoft Word was used.
During the second step of analysis, the open codes were structured around the four frame-elements. This step resembles axial coding in the grounded theory approach, for which the “axes” were represented by the four frame-elements. For each reasoning device, the open codes were translated to open questions that were asked in qualitative interviews and
answered in a codebook for the content analysis of qualitative transcripts.
By completing the codebook for each respondent individually, the step from open coding to axial coding resulted in the development of structured themes and categories derived from relatively unique open codes. Reflecting the cyclic-iterative research process of
the grounded theory approach, the codebook was revised until theoretical saturation was achieved (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). More specifically, after new rounds of analysis of interview transcripts no longer resulted in the emergence of new questions (codes), the codebook was regarded as consisting of all aspects of which the reasoning devices (frame-elements) are constructed.
During the third step of analysis, the final version of the codebook was translated to a framing matrix, as described by the inductive framing analysis of Van Gorp (2007a). Similar to the process of focused coding, categories were related to one another during this step (Bryman, 2008). Specifically, the four reasoning devices or frame-elements were connected to form frame packages in a framing matrix. The columns of the matrix represented the four reasoning devices, in which the different questions for each reasoning device were
synthesised to one underlying theme, the frame-element. The rows of the matrix represented individual participants. The reasoning devices were interpreted as individual frame packages during this step of coding (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). For each respondent, frame
packages resulted from a horizontal reading and interpretation of the framing matrix. During the fourth step of analysis, the individual frame packages were compared for similarities and differences in order to reduce the individual frame packages to more general issue-specific frames. This step entailed subjective influence of the researcher, as he had to attach the frame packages to social-cultural values and meanings. However, by staying close to the original frame packages in the clustering process, the researchers’ bias was minimised.
To enhance the richness of frames and to maintain the embeddedness of frames in their social-cultural context, frames were illustrated with in-verbatim quotes of participants during the fifth step of analysis. An additional advantage of these quotes is that fellow
researchers are better able to judge the validity of the frames by assessing the compatibility of the frame’s definition with participants’ experiences.
The above-mentioned procedures for the framing analysis formed the core of the framing measurement tool designed for this study. Moreover, the steps described for the qualitative inductive analysis of frames were extrapolated to the quantitative content analysis of media frames and the cluster analysis of interpretation frames. The difference for the quantitative analyses in the latter two approaches with the qualitative approach mainly concerns the quantification of the codebook. Based on the qualitative analysis of the “answers” to eight open-ended questions intended to measure the four frame-elements, 21 items on a semantic differential were designed for the quantitative analyses of media frames and 18 items on the same semantic differential quantitatively assessed the interpretation
frames. These items reflected the variety of positions regarding all four frame-elements found in the qualitative study.
The framing measurement tool was applied to three different studies. First, in study 1, a qualitative framing analysis was conducted on secondary and primary data collected in focus groups and individual interviews. Second, the qualitatively identified reasoning devices and frames in study 1 were translated to a codebook for the quantitative content analysis of media frames in study 2. This codebook was pre-tested to take account of differences in frame-elements between the public and media discourses. In study 3, the measurement tool for interpretation frames that resulted from the qualitative study was validated in a large-scale survey. By conducting a cluster analysis on similar items used in the quantitative content analysis of media frames, media frames and interpretation frames were compared validly as set out in the aim and central research question of this study.
Study 1: Qualitative inductive analysis of interpretation frames Method
Data collection
This study consists of two parts. First, a qualitative content analysis was conducted on transcripts of individual interviews and focus group discussions to develop the framing measurement tool applied in this study and to identify interpretation frames inductively. Second, the codebook of the framing measurement tool was applied as interview guide in individual interviews and focus groups, which validated the applicability of the framing measurement tool during the collection of primary data. In addition, two framed
governmental communication messages were presented to participants in the individual interviews and focus groups. One message framed the participatory society as a “bottom-up” citizens’ initiative, whereas the other message framed the participatory society as a “top-down” governmentally forced scheme, resulting from necessary economical savings. Participants were asked for their opinion on and preference for these texts. Their responses triangulated and informed study 4, in which citizens’ responses to top-down versus bottom-up framed messages were assessed within the framing as media effects paradigm.
The semi-structured interview guide and the two versions of the framed governmental communication message are included in Appendix A1. The interviews and focus group discussions were audio-video taped and transcribed in verbatim. The average duration of the individual interviews was 40 minutes. The focus group discussions lasted 90 minutes each.
Sample
The qualitative content analysis is conducted on a purposive sample of 15 individual interview transcripts and four focus group transcripts. All participants were aged over 18 years and the composition of the groups was heterogeneous with respect to gender and homogenous with respect to educational level. The inclusion criterion for transcripts was based on the theoretical consideration that the participatory society was the main topic of the conversations. However, to aim for maximum variation (Bryman, 2008), two focus group discussions on the more general topic of citizens’ perspectives on society were included. These discussions have the additional value of contextualising the findings on the perspectives on the participatory society.
Participants for the primary data collection were sampled based on purposive
sampling (Bryman, 2008). The inclusion criteria aimed to reflect maximum variety regarding age, gender, region and educational level. The composition of the focus groups was
homogenous with respect to educational level to avoid the influence of unequal levels of knowledge and power relations on the experiences shared within groups (McLafferty, 2004). One focus group consisted of lower educated citizens and the other group consisted of higher educated citizens.
In total, 12 participants were included in the individual interviews. The mean age of participants in the individual interviews was 47 years old, ranging from 23 to 68 years old. 50% of participants were female. The focus groups consisted of seven participants each. The mean age of participants in the focus groups was 47 years old, ranging from 24 to 66 years old. 8 out of 14 participants in the focus groups were female.
Data analysis
The five-step framing analysis measurement tool outlined in the methodological framework was applied to the qualitative inductive analysis of interpretation frames in this study. The framing matrices including the four frame-elements based on both primary and secondary data throughout all analysed research projects are included in Appendix A2.
Results part 1: interpretation frames resulting from framing-analysis of secondary data Framing analysis based on study on citizens’ general perspectives (N=15)
Two general tendencies in the interpretation frames of Dutch citizens concerning their perspective on society can be distinguished within this research project. The more specific frames placed within this general typology are listed in Table 1. The first generic position
concerns a top-down “We are the victim” frame, which emphasises Dutch society is moving backwards as consequence of influences external to the individual’s responsibility. The issue-specific dominant frames 1, 3 and 4 can be categorised under this generic frame. Second, a generic frame that attaches more agency to citizens’ actions counters this dominant frame. This generic bottom-up frame can be labelled as the “We have to take matters into our own hands” frame. The specific counter frames 2 and 5 can be placed within this generic bottom-up frame.
Table 1: interpretation frames of Dutch citizens concerning their perspective on society illustrated with quotes (translated from Dutch)
Frame Quote
Frame 1 (top-down): As a consequence of a decrease in solidarity, the Dutch society is moving backwards.
Respondent 13: “People are getting harsher. I left the country for two years, and a lot is changed since then. It seems that people are no longer looking out for each other”
Frame 2 (bottom-up): We need to take matters into own hands when the government stops to care for us
Respondent 6: “You are forced to swindle. You are forced in a situation because you can no longer function the way you would like to function in your own country ”
Frame 3 (top-down): “They” are more to blame for the decline in solidarity than “we” are
Respondent 3: “I believe it is good that people who get employment benefits while working at the same time are punished. Do I have to wear a headscarf to get some help? Frame 4 (top-down): The poor are
getting poorer and the rich are getting richer
Respondent 7: “As citizens, we have to pay for all the economical savings while the banks have caused them. More people are getting poorer while a small group is getting richer’ Frame 5 (bottom-up): Necessity is
the mother of invention
Respondent 7: “I am the only one seeing light at the end of the tunnel. If everyone remains pessimistic, the society will not recover”
Framing analysis based on study on citizens’ initiatives (N=12)
Based on the qualitative content analysis of the transcripts of 12 semi-structured interviews in this research project, the participatory society as societal development is experienced from the interpretation frames listed in Table 2. Similar to the study on general citizens’
perspectives, a distinction between bottom-up and top-down frames can be identified. The bottom-up frames are labelled as 2, 3 and 4 in the table. Reasoned from these frames, citizens experience a willingness and ability to participate in society. In contrast, interpreting the participatory society from top-down frames 1 and 5 implies a dependency of citizens on the government to initiate participation. In this reading, the government needs to stimulate participation, while at the same time allowing citizens freedom to decide for themselves if and to what extent they are willing and able to participate in Dutch society. The contrast between the top-down and bottom-up interpretation frames is characterised by a distinction
between the “we” perspective emphasised in the bottom up frames and the more individual “I versus the government” perspective articulated in the top-down frames.
Table 2: interpretation frames of Dutch citizens concerning their perspective on the citizens’ initiatives illustrated with quotes (translated from Dutch)
Frame Quote
Frame 1 (top-down): I will participate when the government offers the right opportunities
Respondent 1: “I don’t know why they are not doing it. I have to think for the government. They are not supporting it”
Frame 2 (bottom-up): Together we stand strong. Necessity is the mother of invention
Respondent 2: “We are living in Almere since 2001 and we have a nice neighborhood. We interact and help each other out when needed”
Frame 3 (bottom-up): When you want something, you have to take matters in own hands
Respondent 3: “If citizens want a change in the
environment, they can arrange it themselves by making a call to the local government”
Frame 4 (bottom-up): We must set about rolling up our sleeves and start to participate
Respondent 10: “The local authorities are trying to help us. If you come up with initiatives, it can be realized”
Frame 5 (top-down): Participation should remain an individual choice and should not be obliged by the government
Respondent 5: “I have no strong connection with my neighborhood. Some people associate intensively with each other. I am not that kind of person. I have to think for myself”
Framing analysis based on study on the participatory society as societal development (N=13) Similar to the two research projects presented above, a general distinction between top-down and bottom-up frames was identified in the focus group transcripts of this research project. The top-down frames emphasise a clear causal link between the economical savings and the existence of the participatory society. Reasoned from this top-down interpretation, the
participatory society is explicitly linked with governmental policy from above, which aims to disguise economical savings. The issue-specific frames that fall within the top-down
categorisation are listed as frame number 1 and 2 in Table 3. The only specific bottom-up frame, which highlights citizens’ own responsibility to initiate participation, is listed as frame 3. Frame 4 is not categorised as either top-down or bottom-up since it emphasises both the force of the government from above and the responsibilities of citizens from below.
A noteworthy difference in the identified interpretation frames between this research project and the former two research projects is the contrast between the salience of top-down and bottom-up frames. Participants’ words in the first two research projects, which not explicitly mentioned the concept “participatory society”, reflected a perspective that viewed citizens as willing and able to initiate participation independent from governmental
interference. However, in this last research project, the term “participatory society”, which functioned as focus of discussion, resulted in resistance to the idea of participation. This
resistance resonated in the interpretation frames emphasising a stronger negative influence of the government in the causal interpretation and moral evaluation of the participatory society.
Table 3: interpretation frames of Dutch citizens concerning their perspective on the participatory society as societal development illustrated with quotes (translated from Dutch)
Frame Quote
Frame 1 (top-down): As a consequence of savings, the government abandons us to our fate
Respondent 4: “This (savings) is the cause, that is why we have to fend for ourselves”
Frame 2 (top-down): Forced by savings, we are becoming increasingly more responsible for our society. The government still needs to be a safety net for the ones in need
Respondent 3: “You must be independent. To carry responsibility dependent on own capacity is nice. But you must get help when you cannot participate”
Frame 3 (bottom-up): We already want to participate and we are already taking
responsibility for our society. The government should not force us to participate
Participant 5: “If they oblige it, it feels that is imposed upon us. People have an intrinsic desire to care for one another”
Frame 4 (top-down/bottom-up): No one should be excluded from the participatory society. The responsibilities should be carried according to the means of citizens
Respondent 12: “If the government believes that people will be helped, some people will be excluded. Not everyone has children. People don’t even know their own neighbours”
Results part 2: interpretation frames resulting from framing-analysis of primary data Framing analysis based on individual interviews (N=12)
Based on the framing-matrix (Appendix A2) three individual interpretation frames were identified in the in-depth interviews on the participatory society (see Table 4). The dominant interpretation of the participatory society emphasised during the interviews foregrounded the causal relationship between the occurrence of the participatory society and economical savings initiated by the government. This interpretation frame, listed as frame 1 in Table 4, supports the results from the framing analysis of secondary data presented above. In their problem definition, citizens emphasised that participating in society is positive in principle, since it can enhance solidarity in society. In their causal interpretation, citizens related the participatory society entirely to economical savings. Morally reasoned, citizens emphasised that they are limited in willingness and ability to participate more in society. Furthermore, citizens believed that the participatory society has unequal consequences for Dutch society. Particularly, older people without a safety net will be harmed most. As treatment
recommendation, citizens suggested that the government should not force citizens to participate. By allowing them freedom of choice, citizens will decide for themselves how much they are willing to do besides their responsibilities in busy everyday live.
The second frame counters the dominant top-down interpretation frame described above. This frame is listed as frame 2 in Table 4. This counter frame emphasises that besides top-down economical savings, the decreasing solidarity in Dutch society has caused the shift
towards the participatory society from bottom-up. A need for Dutch citizens to look out for each other is emphasised in the moral evaluation. This desire for citizens’ initiatives will however not be satisfied, since most “other” citizens are unwilling to do more for society. Distrust in “other” individualistic citizens is emphasised in the moral evaluation, which counters the empathy for “victims” foregrounded in the dominant frame. According to citizens’ treatment recommendation, the social dilemma resulting from the participatory society can be resolved by governmentally offered rewards in return for participation.
In Table 4, the interpretation frame that attaches the least weight to economical savings is depicted as frame 3. This interpretation frame contains the most positive problem definition, since citizens emphasised they are willing and able to improve the quality of their living environment from bottom-up. In that sense, this frame counters the dominant frame as well. Furthermore, the moral evaluation of this frame argues that a shift in mentality is needed; citizens will need to have more mutual respect and need to look out for each other to make the participatory society work. Similar to the previously described frames, inequality in willingness and ability to participate was emphasised. In the treatment recommendation, willingness and ability were interpreted as two different things. A lack of ability needs to be overcome by limiting the responsibilities for citizens (top-down), whereas limited willingness needs to be overcome by a shift in mentality of Dutch citizenry (bottom-up).
Framing analysis based on focus groups (N=2)
The results of the framing-analysis of focus groups predominantly supported the
interpretation frames already found in the individual interviews (see Table 4). 11 out of 14 participants interpret the participatory society from the three identified interpretation frames. The dominance of the first “top-down economical savings frame” was validated in the focus group discussions; six out of fourteen respondents interpreted the participatory society as a development forced upon citizens by the government as a consequence of economical savings. Similar to results from the secondary framing analysis and the results from the individual interviews, participants showed resistance to the participatory society when it was forced upon them from top-down whereas participation in society was interpreted as
something positive when citizens’ initiatives from bottom-up were emphasised.
The framing-analysis of the focus groups resulted in two additional interpretation frames (Table 4). The most dominant frame emphasises the participatory society as a disguised economical savings measure. Morally reasoned, doing more for each other in society is positive. However, this should be motivated out of a bottom-up emerging desire for
solidarity. The salient difference with dominant frame number 1 is that the hidden nature of the economical savings is emphasised, which implies that the government misleads citizens.
The second frame found exclusively in the focus groups introduces a completely bottom-up interpretation of the participatory society. In the causal interpretation, the participatory society is the result of decreasing solidarity, which incited citizens to reason from a less individualistic perspective. To the extent that this frame represents the only “pure” bottom-up interpretation, it can be thought of as a counter frame of all previously mentioned frames that foregrounded the top-down initiated economical savings as main driving force behind the participatory society.
Table 4: Interpretation frames identified in individual interviews and focus groups
Interpretation frames Quotes Respondents
Frame 1 (top-down): “Caused by economical savings, the government forces a participation society upon its citizens. In principle, participation is a positive development, but forcing participants from top-down to do even more for society is an unrealistic scheme. Clear lines are drawn considering the abilities and willingness of citizens to participate. Especially weaker groups will be harmed by the participatory society”
“It should not be forced upon us. That everyone has to participate. It is positive to some extent, but it should not be forced”
(Respondent 1)
“I think that particularly the weaker groups in society will be harmed” (Respondent 2)
Interviews: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 Focus groups: 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24
Frame 2 (top-down/bottom-up): “I am willing to contribute to society. Unfortunately, others in society are not willing to do so. As a consequence, the participatory society that is caused by decreasing solidarity and economical savings, will fail in practice. Weaker groups will be excluded from society. Participation should therefore be stimulated and rewarded by the government”
“One person is working a lot, the other one is working less. Unemployed people receiving unemployment benefits, they should contribute more!” (Respondent 5) “I think they should offer rewards in return for participation. Especially since it is obliged. Otherwise, a small group needs to work for all others. That is unfair”
(Respondent 26)
Interviews: 4, 5, 11
Focus groups: 25
Frame 3 (top-down/bottom-up): “By working together, citizens can improve the livelihood in their neighborhood. Citizens are already doing this from their own initiative. Participation is positive since it enhances a mentality of solidarity and mutual respect. At the same time it is negative because of inequality in willingness and ability. The participatory society is initiated from a withdrawing government, who should not force citizens to participate more in society.
Participation should be limited by citizens’ capacity”
“I believe it is really important if I can do something for others, but only in my direct environment. I will not help a complete stranger” (Respondent 12)
“Participation is a choice. You cannot say we are going towards a participatory society. That implies forced labor. Or you will do it from own initiative. From childhood on, people say we help each other and we support each other. You cannot force it”
(Respondent 26)
Interviews: 9, 12 Focus groups: 13, 19, 20, 26
-society as introduced by the government is nothing more than a disguised savings measure. The principle of helping others is very positive however and this should be articulated stronger from citizens’ need for solidarity from bottom-up. The
government should be more honest about the real reason for the participatory society”
packed by the government. The principle of contributing in society is very positive. I think it is more of a pretty flag, but in practice people will get more problems” (Respondent 25)
Focus groups: 15, 17, 25
Frame 5 (bottom-up): “The participatory society is caused by a decrease in solidarity. We should aim for a less individualistic society in which we care more for each other. Despite this, the participatory society will not be achieved in practice because some citizens will contrite less than others”
“Toughening of the society. We don’t look back anymore; we don’t stop when someone gets beaten. It has become a society of me me me” (Respondent 18)
Interviews: -Focus groups: 18, 26
Citizens’ reactions towards framed communication on the participatory society
The individual interviews and focus group discussions revealed a great variety of responses to the two framed communication texts on the participatory society. Version 1 emphasised a bottom-up definition of the participatory society as driven by citizens’ own initiatives, whereas version 2 highlighted the top-down role of economical savings initiated by the government. Participants preferring version 1 emphasised the less forcing tone of the bottom-up version as the main reason for their preference, which is exemplified by participant 1: “Positive. Less forced upon from above. Less you need to do this and that. More reasoned from the citizen’s point of view”. Resistance to bottom-up framed version 1 was based on the opinion that the government misleads citizens by disguising the real reason for the
participatory society, which was emphasised by participant 2: “Written from the
government’s perspective. Propaganda. It’s like citizens want to do this.” The resistance to this bottom-up definition underlines the dominant interpretation frames of citizens, which frame the participatory society as a means to governmentally initiated savings.
The preference for top-down framed version 2 was predominantly based on the honesty and transparency embedded in the governmental communication. In this text, it was acknowledged that economical savings caused the participatory society. Respondent 2: “It is clear why it needs to be done. It’s about savings. This is a better text.” Resistance to version 2 was based on the perception of a threat to freedom of choice, which induced psychological reactance in citizens’ perspectives (Burgoon et al., 2002). As respondent 3 emphasised: “It needs to be based on own initiative. Absolutely, it needs to be initiated from yourself”.
Respondent 10 underlines this view by stating: “It seems to me that the government is taking away facilities without giving something in return”.
Surprisingly, whereas the individual interviews showed a balanced view on the preference for either version 1 or 2 of the communication texts, participants in both focus groups unanimously preferred top-down version 2. As qualitative research should aim for variety and richness rather then representativeness, study 4 will provide a quantitative reassessment of citizens’ reactions towards framed communication texts.
Conclusion and discussion study 1: dominant voices and their challengers The findings resulting from the individual interviews and focus groups confirm the interpretation frames identified in the secondary analysis of qualitative transcripts, which implies that the introduced framing measurement tool was validated for primary data collection. In both parts of study 1, interpretations of the participatory society can be placed within either “bottom-up” or “top-down” generic frames. Top-down frames emphasise the government as driving force behind the participatory society. Following this reasoning, the government increasingly extrapolates responsibilities to Dutch citizens as a consequence of economical savings. Top-down frames induce reactance in citizens’ interpretations since they are viewed as freedom decreasing measures (Burgoon et al., 2002).
The dominant top-down frames are countered by challenging bottom-up frames (Carragee & Roefs, 2004), which emphasise that citizens are only to a limited extent willing and able to participate more in society out of a desire to restore the solidarity that is
diminishing in the individualistic Dutch society. The distinction between “bottom-up” and “top-down’ frames on the participatory society identified in the public discourse relates to Scott’s (1998) vision on high-modernism, which emphasises the tension between the state and its citizens. For the state, legibility of the “facts on paper” is crucial. This top-down perspective is in conflict with the “facts on the ground” experienced by citizens from bottom-up. Extrapolated to the participatory society, the state views the participatory society as a utopian plan from above, which is in conflict with the local knowledge and abilities of citizens (metis) on the ground, who therefore resist the governmental scheme.
Reasoned from citizens’ moral evaluations, inequality resulting from the participatory society was emphasised in two different ways. First, not every citizen feels able to contribute more in society than he or she is already doing now. Second, in the qualitatively identified interpretation frames across all research projects, the experience of a “participating us” against a “refusing them” group of citizens is emphasised frequently, which reflects the
process of social identification (de Swaan, 1999). Furthermore, the perceived inequality in willingness and ability resembles the notion of a social dilemma, which implies that the short-term interests of individual citizens, not participating at all, are at odds with the long-term interests of all Dutch citizens, who are better of by participating (Liebrand, 1983).
However, some citizens emphasised more trust in citizens’ initiatives emerging from bottom-up. They emphasised solidarity and mutual respect as the motivational forces behind the participatory society. These citizens interpret the participatory society as an imagined community, in which citizens who may not know each other beforehand will help each other because they feel connected by a shared set of responsibilities in society (Anderson, 2003).
All in all, the framing analysis tool introduced in this research has resulted in comparable outcomes for different qualitative data collection methods. The triangulation of the framing analysis tool for different qualitative data collection methods enhanced the reliability of the findings (Bryman, 2008). At the same time, the variety of data collection methods employed in this study resulted in different challenges and opportunities for the identification of interpretation frames. The qualitative content analysis’ main advantage is that it was conducted on existing non-reactive data. However, data used for the secondary analysis was not collected for the aim of framing analysis, which rendered the interpretation of participants’ words as frames a challenging task. The advantage of individual interviews is that it allowed the identification of individual interpretation frames without bias from other people in the social setting of individuals. The focus group’s main advantage is that it resembled the interactive context of everyday life conversations more than the individual interviews (Kitzinger, 1994; Holstein & Gubrium, 1995; Belzile & Öberg, 2012). Group interaction stimulated an in-depth discussion on the participatory society.
To the extent that new rounds of data collection in the interviews and focus group did not reveal new themes in the interpretation frames compared to the frames found based on the secondary data, theoretical saturation of interpretation frames was achieved in this study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Study 2: Quantitative content analysis of media frames Method
Data collection
A quantitative content analysis was conducted to identify media frames. For the collection of data, a coding protocol and a coding sheet were developed (see Appendix B1 for codebook). The variables in the codebook were based on a quantification of the qualitative study’s
