Terrorist attack frames and their evolvement

(1)

(2)

Preface & acknowledgements

This is the dissertation ‘Terrorist attack frames and their evolvement’. The basis of this study is an inductive analysis that was conducted with cases from the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia. The objective of this research was to discover frames in post terrorist attack communications from political leaders and the evolvement thereof.

This research is mandatory in order to fulfil the graduation requirements of the master Crisis and Security Management, from the Leiden University. The research was complicated and came with many obstacles. Hereby, I learned that writing a master thesis is hard work and takes effort. During this process, I learned a lot about academic research and patience. Luckily, my supervisor D. Weggemans knew to steer me in the right direction when necessary and was always available and willing to answer my inquiries.

I would like to thank my supervisor for his guidance and support during this process. I am also very thankful for all the facilities the university offered to write this dissertation.

In addition, I want to thank everyone that supported me during this undertaking. Including friends and family with whom I could debate and reflect on this research. F. Hendriks for her time and effort spent on the design and E. van der Ley for her advice and help regarding the writing of this thesis. My parents deserve a special thank you, for always supporting me and keeping my eyes on the prize. They kept me motivated during this process and their kind words served me well.

(3)

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to identify frames in post terrorist attack communications from political leaders and the evolvement thereof. Research suggests that with the use of framing theory, one can affect how society perceives a message. Frames are schemes of interpretation through which individuals look at reality. There is no knowledge available about frames used by political leaders during their post terrorist attack communication. Therefore, the central research question of this study is: ‘Through what frames do political leaders present terroristic events and to what extent do these frames evolve?’

Due to the lack of knowledge about this topic this study used an inductive research design with which it derived the theory from raw data. In order to identify the frames through which political leaders present terrorist attacks, the speeches given directly after a terrorist attack were analysed from six different cases. This research selected cases from the UK, the US and Australia. At first, the themes were identified and from that it became clear what focus each speech had. With the use of those outcomes the frames were identified.

Based on the results from this study, it can be concluded that in each country, frames shift towards new priorities and each country has different focal points in their post terrorist attack message. Five frames were identified in the analysis and this research found that frames shifted towards a more informative and policy oriented nature over time. In addition, political leaders address the Victim, Compassion & Empathy theme less over time. This study was subjected to several limitations and further research is necessary to generalize the findings from this research and explain why they occurred.

(4)

List of graphs

Chapter 5

1: Case 1: Tony Blair 2: Case 2: Theresa May 3: Case 3: Barack Obama 4: Case 4: Donald Trump 5: Case 5: Tony Abbott 6: Case 6: Malcolm Turnbull

7: Average percentage per theme in the U.K. 8: Average percentage per theme in the U.S. 9: Average percentage per theme in Australia

(8)

1. Introduction

1.1 Context

Terrorism is not a new threat, it has been around for a very long time. 9/11 and the recent terrorist trends are the reasons that terrorism is put on the list of top security concerns in Europe (European Commission, 2015). The current terrorist threat is substantial (NCTV, 2017). Western countries have been victimized by terrorist attacks and the danger remains present. This continuous threat is complex and will not be solved anytime soon (Prive, 2013). Governments are still perceiving the threat level as substantial because of the current foreign terrorist fighters threat (NCTV, 2017) (R. Borum, 2017) (A. Reed, 2017). It is the duty of each country to protect their society (Cross, 2017) and terrorism is a phenomenon that must be actively countered in order to protect society from being victimized. For that reason, governments are actively monitoring the terrorist threat.

The main goal of the terrorists is to destabilize societies, create fear and to seek publicity (Frey, S, Lüchinger, & Simon, 2002) (Gibbs, 1989) (Norris, Kern, & Just, 2003). Thus, a terrorist seeks to change the political discourse. The current approaches for countering terrorist attacks are mostly aimed at deterrence. This means that countries are focused on enhancing risks of failure and increasing costs of terrorist attacks. Yet, they could also emphasize more on another aspect of countering terrorism, which is making terrorism less attractive (Frey, S, Lüchinger, & Simon, 2002).

An essential part of the current counter terrorism strategy is to improve the response on a terrorist attack. That way, the impact of a terrorist attack can be marginalized. It appeals on the resilience of society if the impact can be lowered by post crisis communication. Resilience is the capacity that a system has in order to absorb disturbance, undergo change, but essentially still retain the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks (Longstaf & Yang, 2008). Due to the positive effect of resilience with the use of post crisis communication after a terrorist attack, it could make a country or a place less appealing for the current terrorist threat to express itself there (R. Borum, 2017) (Prive, 2013). Risk perception of the public is important for the way the public acts based on threats. With solid crisis communication, one can steer the public in the right direction. That means that the way the public reacts on a crisis can be influenced by crisis communication (Rogers, Amlot, Rubin, Wessely, & Krieger, 2007). Crisis communication can influence the perception of a threat, the way society

(9)

responds to it and thus how much possible effect a terrorist attack has (Rogers, Amlot, Rubin, Wessely, & Krieger, 2007). Trying to base your communication on those goals is especially important if the goal is to counter fear. This can be done through framing the message in a certain way.

The framing theory states that; in order to be able to process large amounts of information that individuals receive, one uses frames to make sense of reality. This is due to our cognitive limitations. Frames can be presented through messages and can be seen as scopes, through which people look at realities, events or situations (Prince, Safety First, 2014). However, this can only be done if one trusts the spokesperson that relays the message and if this person has a high credibility (Rogers, Amlot, Rubin, Wessely, & Krieger, 2007) (Seeger W. M., 2006). Individuals can accept and acknowledge a frame only if they are willing to see it that way. To narrow post crisis communication down even further, this research was specifically aimed at speeches from leaders after a terrorist attack took place. To make this a thorough research, speeches from different countries with different spokespersons were analysed in order to gain more insight into this matter.

1.2 Research

Research shows that in times of crisis, citizens turn to government and media for answers, comfort and protection (Gadarian, 2010). In this research, leaders who gave speeches after an event took place are regarded as current practices. This communication has the goal to communicate with society to mitigate the impact and to counter the insecurity feelings of the citizens (Longstaf & Yang, 2008). By that communication, one is trying to appeal to the resilience of society through post crisis communication. The media affects the public’s perception about acts of terrorism through applying certain frames in order to highlight particular aspects (Powell, 2011) (Patrick, 2014). This means that the media influences the perceptions of society during a crisis and thus steers the threat perceptions (Norris, Kern, & Just, 2003). It therefore shows the importance of post crisis communication through the media and frames. If the government wants to influence society, it must become a source for the media (Rogers, Amlot, Rubin, Wessely, & Krieger, 2007). A post crisis speech, communicated through the media, has the potential to be a key factor to influence the resilience of society and thus to counter the attractiveness for possible following terrorist attacks. Through frames, the way the public perceives reality can be affected (Prince, Safety First, 2014). In addition, research supports that people’s perceptions of the terrorist threats depend in part on how it is framed (Woods, 2011). Thus, via post terrorist attack

(10)

communicated frames, the impact of a terrorist attack can be reduced or contained. Hence, the central research question of this study is:

Through what frames do political leaders present terroristic events and to what extent do these frames evolve?

The goal of this research is to gain insight into the frames that political leaders use after a terrorist attack. This in order to find out what frames were used by various leaders, in different countries and what developments can be seen in their practices. To answer the research question there are two sub questions in this research. The first sub question is; What are the differences and similarities found in the analysis in different speeches within each country? This sub question regards to a comparison of the speeches in different times and by different leaders, within the same country. The second sub question is; What are the differences and similarities found cross-country? The answer to the second sub question provided insights in the differences of approaches from the speeches in different countries.

1.3 Analysis

In this thesis, post terrorist attack speeches from political leaders were compared and analysed in order to gain insight regarding differences in practices, developments, focal points and approaches. The cases were inductively analysed with the use of the framing theory by Goffman (Goffman, 1974). The theory is used to assess the frames found in the cases. The cases selected in the United Kingdom (UK) are: the London metro-bombings in 2005 (1) and the London bridge-attack 2017 (2). The cases from the United States of America are: the bombing of the Boston marathon 2013 (3) and the New York-truck attack 2017 (4). The cases from Australia are: the Sidney-siege 2014 (5) and the Brighton-siege 2017 (6). From each case, the speech of the political leader was analysed and compared within-, and cross-country. The research question was answered with the use of this theory and the analysis of the speeches. To determine if any developments or changes have been made in the current practices, it was decided to do a comparative case study. This analysis is solely focused on the linguistics of the speeches. It regards to the content of the message. The end goal of the analysis was to let frames emerge from the data. Firstly, nine themes were identified and assessed during content analysis. The themes identified in the analysis are: (1) Practicalities, (2) Victims, Compassion & Empathy, (3) Terrorism & Impact, (4) Policy, (5) Immediate Reaction, (6) Emergency services, (7) The Event, (8) Religion, (9) Justification by Diffusion of Responsibility. These themes were the basis of post terrorist attack communication in the cases from this study. From the priority that each political leader gave to the themes, this

(11)

research could identify five different frames. The five different frames identified in this research are: a hearts and mind frame, a business frame, a rational frame, a politically tainted frame and an informative compassionate frame. Based on the results from this analysis, evolvements were assessed.

1.4 Relevance

The societal relevance of this research was to gather more information about terrorism in general, and specifically on the current practices when it comes to speeches from political leaders (Longstaf & Yang, 2008) (Gadarian, 2010). The right practices can possibly aid in making acts of terrorism less attractive, creating more resilience and improving policies that are aimed at the aftermath of terrorist attacks. Furthermore, these practices can also help countering the fear that terrorist attacks bring and preventing diversity and chaos in society. This is possible because frames can influence how individuals perceive a certain event (Goffman, 1974). From the comparisons of speeches, conclusions are drawn to learn about post terrorist attack communication.

Academically this research is important for gaining more knowledge about crisis communication of post terrorist attacks. There was not much literature on the topic, post crisis communication of terrorist attacks, and therefore another goal was to gain more insight into that subject and the way that leaders used frames to influence the impact of a terrorist attack (or how society perceives it). Similar research was never done before and with this research one aimed to discover frames, frameshifts, approaches and evolvements. This research is necessary because any insight that can be gained about terrorism is important, considering terrorism is a substantial threat in our current society (NCTV, 2017) (NCTV, 2016) (European Commission, 2015) (Mendelsohn, 2011).

There was no literature found about the developments of speeches after terrorist attacks. In addition, there was no literature about linguistics after terrorist attacks. Therefore, this research provides in-depth knowledge about the speech practices from different leaders and the developments thereof. This study generated more knowledge about this specific topic, the way that speeches can influence the terrorist threat and the threat perception of the public. One is always looking for ways to counter terrorism, and to generate new terrorism perspectives and knowledge. This increase in knowledge about current post terrorist attack practices makes this research valuable.

(12)

Thus, this research deducted frames from the speeches and compared those different frames in order to see what changed over the years and what differences there are between countries and spokespersons. This was a start to fill the literature gap about this topic and to gain more knowledge about terrorism and how to counter the effects of it. Furthermore, follow-up research can investigate if this could aid in reducing the impact of a terrorist attack and in countering terrorism. This research also aimed to add an additional factor for specialists to look at, when countering the impact of terrorist attacks. It was purely focused on how political leaders framed their message and what has changed.

1.5 Guide

This research started with orienting the current body of knowledge about existing practices of post crisis communication. Thereafter the theory is discussed and explained. When the theoretical framework is explained, the method of analysis is elaborately discussed. After that, the cases are analysed, in-depth knowledge is generated about the cases and tested along the theory. Then, the sub questions are answered, all the data is compared and differences and similarities are discussed. To finalize this research a conclusion is drawn based on the answers of both sub questions and the analysis. To conclude it is explained what has changed in the post crisis communication and to what extent. In addition, findings about the different cases and countries are discussed and the theoretical insights generated by this research are elaborated.

(13)

2. Research on Crisis

In this chapter, research about the main topic is discussed. It is explored whether similar research exists and what knowledge is available about post crisis communication and speeches. All the topics relevant for this research are defined and its relevance is explained.

2.1 The threat

It is clear that even though the Islamic state has fallen, there is still a high-level risk of a terrorist attack (NCTV, 2017) (R. Borum, 2017). This is due to the continuing flow of migration and the possibility of foreign terrorist fighters. Therefore, one must seek for solutions regarding the countering of the terrorist threat. The goal of terrorism is to destabilize society and to gain publicity for a cause (Norris, Kern, & Just, 2003) (Mendelsohn, 2011) (Frey, S, Lüchinger, & Simon, 2002). The current approaches are mainly focused on deterrence. This means that one is trying to decrease the opportunity of terrorist attacks and to counter the radicalisation (NCTV, 2016) (General Intelligence and Security Service, 2014). In this thesis terrorism is defined as: ‘the perpetration of ideologically inspired acts of violence against people or of acts intended to cause property damage and calculated to result in social disruption, in order to undermine and destabilise society, create a climate of fear among the general public or influence political decision-making (NCTV, 2017)’ .

The impact of terrorism created a global solidarity of western countries, due to the ‘world risk society’ and the shared awareness of fear from ‘de-bounded’ global risks. After major attacks such as 9/11 in New-York or the 11 September bombing, one did not only create shared solidarity but also fear and vulnerability (Franko, 2007). Terrorism is a transnational problem without real borders and has affected the whole western society. Communication is important for the effect and influence that the threat or attack has (Franko, 2007). Even more so after a crisis, because society then turns mostly to government and media for comfort, information and protection (Gadarian, 2010).

2.2 Crisis communication definition

Definitions of crisis differ, yet one thing is clear; a crisis is always (until a certain point) unexpected and it varies in intensity (Duke & Masland, 2002). About the content of the definition, authors differentiate in perspectives and practices. The crisis definition from Boeing is one of a more practical nature. Their definition about crisis is: ‘Crises are

(14)

unplanned events that directly or potentially threaten Boeing’s reputation; the environment; the health and safety or welfare of Boeing employees; and the health, safety or welfare of citizens surrounding Boeing plants (Duke & Masland, 2002).’ Another author is more abstract about the definition of crises and states that crises are; ‘A crisis is the perception of an unpredictable even that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact organization’s performance and generate negative outcomes (Coombs W. T., 2007).’

In this definition, stakeholders are persons or groups that are affected by a crisis. A crisis can violate the performance of the managing actor by interfering with the stakeholders or by damaged infrastructures that are being affected by a crisis. In addition, a crisis always generates negative outcomes.

Both of these definitions explain a different aspect of crisis, the first definition is practical and clear but the second definition is broader and covers more ground. Therefore, this thesis refers to the second definition. Crisis communication has as goal to reduce and contain harm (Seeger W. M., 2006). This research is focused on reducing the impact of a terrorist attack after an event took place.

In this thesis, post crisis communication is regarded as; ‘What the manager of the crisis says and does after a crisis’ (Coombs W. T., 2006). The manager is the head of the organisation concerned with the crisis and in this research concerns the leader of the government.

2.3 Crisis research history

Much of the existing crisis communication theory about communication is built upon the attribution theory (Bell, 2010). The attribution theory entails that people need to assign responsibility for events. Therefore, this theory posits that people look for causes of events, especially when negative and unexpected (Coombs W. T., 2006). The threat of a crisis is largely a function of responsibility or blame. This theory is based upon the situational crisis and communication theory (SCCT) (Coombs W. T., 2006). The SCCT begins from the crisis manager point of view and starts with assessing the reputational threat of a crisis. The threat is the amount of reputational damage that a crisis could inflict (Coombs W. T., 2006). In case of a terrorist attack, this damage can be conceptualized as the fear, or the political disturbance that comes with the attack.

Three factors in the SCCT theory shape the threat; (1) crisis responsibility, (2) crisis history, (3) relationship or prior reputation. This flows into a two-step process in which the first step is

(15)

to determine the initial crisis responsibility attached to the crisis. This is based on one of the three cluster types of a crisis; (1) Victim cluster, which has weak attribution of responsibility, (2) accidental cluster, this has minimal attribution of responsibility, (3) intentional cluster with a very high attribution of responsibility. By determining the cluster, the government can assess how much responsibility is attributed to them and how large the terrorist threat actually is (how much fear is spread in society) (Coombs W. T., 2006).

The second step involves two intensifying factors; consistency and distinctiveness. Consistency is operationalized as; crisis history, and distinctiveness is operationalized as; prior reputation. With these factors, a crisis manager should be able to assess the crisis and respond with an evidence-based approach. This is how the foundation of crisis communication looks like.

Current research also shows that the role of communication is broader than just instructing. Various approaches can be utilized to enhance resilience (Ruggeiro, Vos 2013). From the communication literature, it is also clear that it is important that leaders show empathy and facilitate sense making. Sense making can be made easier with the use of framing because it helps people with perceiving reality (Ruggeiro, Vos 2013).

2.4 Terrorism, Perception & Media

With a terrorist attack, responsibility and crisis history are difficult and sensitive matters. Many actors are involved and it is therefore difficult to control the narrative. Also, the way an attack is framed is influenced by channels that reach the public first (Powell, 2011) (Norris, Kern, & Just, 2003) (Longstaf & Yang, 2008) (Gadarian, 2010). Thus, channels that reach the public first, influence how the public frames an attack.

The media plays an important role in that subject and influences public threat perceptions. A good crisis communicating practice could help counter the dangers that can be the result of framing by the media (Seeger W. M., 2006) (Bell, 2010). Yet, it is important to acknowledge that how a crisis is handled depends on its specific context. One must adapt to match the crisis with the theory in order to fit each other. Thus, individualisation and not generalization is essential (Seeger W. M., 2006).

It is important to know that the public acceptance to crisis responses, regarding the accommodating of the public, are best received through offline word of mouth. However, in

(16)

times of fear information is best disseminated from the source that is directly involved in the crisis and not from third parties (Liua , Austin, & Jin, 2011) (Olsson, 2014).

This shows the importance of governmental political leaders, communicating with the public after terrorist attacks. This also correlates with the possibility that post crisis communication could aid in the resilience of society by creating perceptions for the public to use. Therefore, this emphasizes even more on the significance of communication and the influence it can have (Sue Lockett John, 2007). The media does have a big share when it comes to sharing information with the public, whether their information is true or false. It is a channel that the public sees and which the public utilizes for gathering information. The danger of the media is also that the terrorist uses the media for increased coverage and communication of their message (Ross, 2007). Therefore, the media may facilitate terrorism and the relationship between the media and this facilitation of terrorism might result in increasing their interconnectivity (Ross, 2007). Terrorists will harness a better ability to implement the numerous tools of mass communication for their own purposes (Ross, 2007).

During a crisis (such as a terrorist attack), there is a risk of escalation, crisis managing actors coming under scrutiny of the media, a chance of the crisis interfering with normal operations, jeopardizing the public safety and security feelings. Therefore, failure to communicate properly is one of the biggest mistakes one can make in a crisis (Duke & Masland, 2002).

2.5 Communication & Terrorism

The public perception of risk is an important factor to consider when analysing public responses to government communication about potential terrorist threats or incidents. This is because risk perceptions, especially those causing fear, have been known to have important implications for physical health (Rogers, Amlot, Rubin, Wessely, & Krieger, 2007). Individual perceptions of threats also have the possibility to impact and sometimes threaten the security of entire systems. This could happen when, for example, the government fails to communicate in an effective manner (Rogers, Amlot, Rubin, Wessely, & Krieger, 2007) (Seeger W. M., 2006). This is due to the communication that affects public perceptions of risk and the public reaction, which can result in a strain of resources (Rogers, Amlot, Rubin, Wessely, & Krieger, 2007). Yet, if people are aware of certain risks of crises happening, it can aid in the resilience of society (Boin & McConnell, 2007). An important role here is the role of journalists. The journalist’s coverage of terrorism ‘help’ the public develop perceptions about the world around them and thus influences how the audience relates to terrorism

(17)

(Robert, 1989). Therefore, as mentioned before, the press is an influencing actor when it comes to the public perceptions of a threat.

The biggest reason of the public’s misperceptions and their possible wrong actions are not lack of knowledge or poor understanding, but the interpretation of facts. These interpretations of facts are fed by values, beliefs, attitudes and channels (Rogers, Amlot, Rubin, Wessely, & Krieger, 2007). Therefore, it is important to have clear, consistent post crisis communication in order to counter the misperceptions. In addition, one must regard to the fact that communicating uncertainty is better than to say, ‘I don’t know’ (Rogers, Amlot, Rubin, Wessely, & Krieger, 2007). This results in the belief that, not only risk perception and accepting uncertainty is important, but also engaging the public in the terrorism crisis. Thus, another point that one should emphasize on is creating credibility and trust prior to a crisis (Rogers, Amlot, Rubin, Wessely, & Krieger, 2007).

If one dives deeper in to the matter of risk perception, an extensive body of literature can be found. Risk perception is influenced by many factors, for example, people experience less fear for risks that are chronic and will kill many people over time, than for a catastrophic event, which kills many people (Gray & Ropeik, 2002). Also, the public wants to feel in control and feel like they can act during times of a crisis. In addition, people are more afraid for a new risk because of an added element of the unknown, the added uncertainty, and distrust in organisations handling a new phenomenon (Gray & Ropeik, 2002). Trust in the organisation that is handling the crisis is also a factor (as already has been proven) that is important in crisis communication and risk perception.

A few factors from risk perception are proven effective in crisis communication. Those factors are; awareness, uncertainty, control, honesty and trust. Risk communication from leaders is not only good for public relations, but also what they do and show. If one says they feel sorry for the victims or if one shows that he is, apparently makes a big difference (Gray & Ropeik, 2002). Honesty gives space to the public in order to put a threat or a risk in perspective. That could result in a feeling of more control during a crisis because they can assess what to do. Honesty generates more trust in the body that is managing the crisis (Gray & Ropeik, 2002). This results in better crisis communication and possibly reduces the harm and the impact of a terrorist attack.

(18)

2.6 former speeches as post crisis communication

From the speech of former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, concerning terrorism, one concluded that fear-arousing content was part of it, most of the time (De Castella, Mcgarty, & Musgrove, 2009). This meant that the content of the speeches did not aid in a possible resilience effect. This was due to the fact that the messages raised doubts about the capacity of Australia and its allies to cope with terrorism, as well as that it promoted uncertainty to the public (De Castella, Mcgarty, & Musgrove, 2009). As is discussed so far, it is clear that those are important factors in post crisis communication and must be consistent and clear in a speech. It is also clear that more research about the content of speeches needs to be conducted and that fear is a complex phenomenon to counter (Mythen & Walklate, 2006). The results of current studies suggest that fear and anger content, in terrorism related speeches, correlate with changes in public attitude and political support, which support the possibility of speeches influencing the public. Alerting the public to threats posed by terrorism aids in legitimacy of the leader and could induce fear (De Castella & McGarty, 2011). It prepares society for risks.

There is limited knowledge on crisis communication from the public organisation perspective. There are two main dimensions to be discussed, according to Olsson. One of these dimensions is the reputation oriented approach and the other is the resilience based approach (Olsson, 2014). Most knowledge is based on reputation oriented approaches because the extensive body of knowledge about crisis communication is focused on blame avoidance (Olsson, 2014). For effective crisis communication on terrorist attacks, one should focus more on a resilience-based approach, which emphasizes more on transparency, speed, tone and control. Trust is the new currency when talking about crisis management and especially, if the goal is to achieve resilience (Olsson, 2014). Another important factor to create a solid post terrorism discourse is to stay ‘on-message’. That is done by ordering the discourse and keep being consistent in the message (Sue Lockett John, 2007).

Political leaders are able to exert substantial control over political and media environments, especially in times of a national crisis. By focussing on the evil that has been done, spokespersons can aid in the cohesion of society and influence how one feels ‘good’ about their country (Sue Lockett John, 2007). Bush has shown that this was effective after the 9/11 attacks. Creating unity by having a common enemy.

(19)

2.7 Summary

In this body of knowledge, it is made clear that post terrorist attack communication is important. Also, it is made clear that there was not much research available about the topic: post terrorist attack communications from political leaders. This research was a start to fill that literature gap. Therefore, an inductive approach was chosen for this research. In the next chapter the theory used for the inductive analysis of the cases is elaborately explained. It is a theory from Goffman, which explains a way of perceiving reality. Through that theory, one can influence how a situation is presented and thus, how the audience perceives that reality. This theory is called: Framing Theory. From the body of knowledge, it can be concluded that the goal of communicating after a crisis, is to contain the impact. Via framing, one can influence how people perceive reality and thus perhaps contain the impact. This theory is developed to understand how individuals process information with the limit of their cognitive capabilities. Through framing, people can process information and understand reality. Therefore, this research used the framing theory for the analysis of the raw data.

(20)

3. Theoretical framework: Framing

3.1 Why Framing

The concept of framing is developed to understand the processes of social interaction and communication in disciplines such as, organizational behaviour, political science, psychology and sociology (Hallahan & Donsback, 2008) (Hajer & Laws, 2006). The framing literature points to frames as images of reality that colour perception and link them to appropriate action (Goffman, 1974). Frames help us understand reality and the way one, for example, frames events. Thus, framing can, as will be further discussed, influences the way individuals perceive reality and how an event can be seen and affects society. Framing can be conceptualized as an image of an event that is put forward that represents a deeper understanding of reality (Prince, 2014).

Thus, frames can help understand society to perceive a reality in a certain way. Through framing, one can influence how a crisis affects society by influencing how the audience sees it. This way, one might be able to contain the impact of a terrorist attack. Framing is used to fix how individuals perceive reality (Hajer, 1989). That is why it is interesting to see how political leaders frame terrorist attacks and what developments have been made.

3.2 What is a frame

A frame not only structures perceptions of reality, but also promotes a course of action by providing a sense of what the problem is, and what should be done about it (Hajer & Laws, 2006). Frames can be described as social constructs that provide a general, broad and normative perspective. Frames are not factual, neutral or objective displays of reality. Rather, they are interpretative schemes for making sense of reality (Goffman, 1974).

Thus, frames provide the public with a perspective of reality. Frames make sense of a certain reality and help people to process it in a specific way. This means that one can frame communication to the public and try to make them accept a certain frame of reality. If you want to lower the impact of a terrorist attack you might have the possibility to do so. It can be done by framing a message to the public in a certain way. An example is Blair’s speech after the bombing of London in 2005. Blair tried to create unity through his message and succeeded. He stated that the attack must be seen as an attack on the ‘British way of life’. Blair made a distinction between the ‘British people’ and people that are trying to ‘cow us, frighten us out of the things we want to do.’ This message from Blair was aimed at creating

(21)

unity through the principle of differences. He created a choice for people: either one agreed with the British people and stood for their way of life or they disagreed with the people who acted through terrorism. Ken Livingston, the Major of London at that time, supported and promoted that message and this resulted in the world sharing the idea that everyone was a Londoner, if one was against the terrorist threat (Stevens A. C., 2007).

3.3 Two sides of framing

As is clear, the concept of framing describes the process of sense making. This process can take place on two levels. This process happens on individual level first and can happen in a collective setting second. The first level focusses on the psychological aspects of framing, the cognitive aspect. This sheds light on the subjective images and normative ideas structuring an individual’s interpretation of reality (Prince, 2014). It is not possible for individuals to understand the world objectively or completely. Thus, life events are interpreted through the scope of beliefs and experiences. Entman described frames as; ‘mentally stored clusters of ideas that guide an individual with the processing of information (Entman, 1993).’ In other words, frames can guide how an individual processes information.

Secondly, collective level frames are the outcomes of social interactions. They function like symbolic interactional units with social meaning that are shared within a certain group of society (Prince, 2014). Once produced, these frames become schemes for interpretation by which individuals determine what is going on.

It is clear that framing can happen on different levels and these levels are to some degree intertwined with each other. That is because in order to create collective accepted frames, one must first be individually exposed to these frames and accept those as a scheme for interpretation. If one does that alongside other individuals, it becomes collectively accepted. To a certain extent, a frame always reaches the individual level. However, a frame does not necessarily have to become a collective accepted scheme for interpretation that is shared within a certain group of society, or society in general.

3.4 Frame alignment

Frame alignment creates a commonly shared frame that structurally influences the collective perspective of reality. The process of frame alignment can take different shapes and forms. Different mechanisms that link frames and create alignment have been developed (Snow,

(22)

Worden, & Benford, 1986). There are four mechanisms through which the alignment and linking of frames happen. The first mechanism is called frame-bridging. With frame-bridging, separate but compatible frames become aligned. The linked frame, links multiple unconnected but compatible frames. The second mechanism is frame-amplification. In this process the individual frame is strengthened into the collective frame. This happens if existing frames are communicated and reinforced. The third mechanism is frame-extension, which focuses on making a frame more attractive for individual actors, who did not align. This is done by expanding the frame to make it broader. The fourth mechanism is frame-transformation. In frame transformation, the content or meaning of a frame can be altered deliberately. By doing that, individual frames can be transformed into a collective frame with new content (Prince, 2014).

The process of frame alignment can take different shapes and forms. It is a process through which frames meet and combine into a general frame, through possible different mechanisms. These four types of frame alignments make it possible to change current frames. It is possible that one tries to expand, change, amplify or link frames in the cases. Alignment of frames can result in a shared interpretation of events, situations, problems and possible guidelines about how to address something. This is important because the formation and the interaction of frames affect the extent to which certain interpretations of reality gain credibility, and may affect society either positively or negatively (Hajer, 1989).

This research is focused on what frames can be detected in the speeches of political leaders of countries. This research also analysed how speeches had evolved over time and what the differences were per country. This in order to see how political leaders framed these events and what stood out in the speeches. This is why frame alignment is important. This way, more knowledge has been generated about post terrorist attack communication.

3.5 Frameshifts

Individual and shared (collectively accepted) frames can change overtime, that is called a frameshift. These frameshifts can happen for various of reasons. Existing frames might lose their credibility, utility, creating a need for a new frame (Rein & Schon, 1977). A frameshift can also happen on purpose. It can be a strategy used for an attempt to reframe an issue or event (Hulst & Yanov, 2008). Frameshifts are assumed to be difficult to establish, yet if an existing frame is changed, then it is only natural that it will bring a new perspective of reality or an altered reality at best. It is debatable if a fundamental frameshift is possible. Schon

(23)

discusses that it is extremely difficult to bring changes in frames because they are based on deeper beliefs and grounded perspectives (Schon, 1979/93). This again emphasizes the fact that one can influence how people perceive reality (events, problems, courses of action) by framing it.

3.6 Context and framing

Context always matters, also with framing. Various contextual factors are part of the structural setting in which the frames come about. Contextual factors that are most important when it comes to influencing the framing process are; cultural context, political opportunity structure and the audience who is targeted (Snow & Benford, 1988). This means that there are several contextual factors that are involved in framing and that one must take each in account. Therefore, these contextual factors affect the framing process.

3.7 Summary

This chapter explained all the mechanisms of framing and it made clear that framing a message can influence how people perceive reality. This research investigated what frames could be detected in post terrorist attack communications. One analysed whether political leaders were emphasizing on certain topics and what differences could be detected per speech and per country. Subsequently, it was examined if frameshifts happened and to what extent. It is clear that frames are not necessarily static and are generated to understand reality.

Due to the theory on frameshifts and alignment, as well as other expectations and differences per case, this research had two hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that frames shift over time. This research analysed whether frames change over time and what the differences were. The second hypothesis is that different countries have different focal points when it comes to post terrorist attack communication. This hypothesis has been tested by analysing the differences in frames across countries. The second hypothesis was built upon the fact that countries differ in factors like cultures, political structures, experience with terrorist attacks and crises. Those differences might result in different approaches and practices. The knowledge generated in this chapter was used to see how political leaders ‘framed’ the cases and what shifts could be detected.

(24)

4. Research design & methodology

In the methodology chapter, the research design is described. Here it is explained what the research is specifically about and how the research has been conducted. In this chapter, it is also discussed how the cases are selected, which cases are used, how the content analysis was conducted, and what the research limitations were. So, this chapter is about how the research is done, what is analysed and how it was set up.

4.1 Research design

Due to the qualitative nature of this research and the in-depth comparisons of the cases, it was decided to use the comparative case study design. This research analysed six cases analysed from three different countries. In each country, two cases were analysed and compared. The amount of terrorist attacks differs per country therefore the possible cases per country were limited. This research focused on the methods; desk research, content analysis and literature reviews. These methods were used to gain contextual insights about crisis communication, frames and how the frames evolved.

The speeches were analysed inductively and it was assessed what could be noticed from the speeches. Firstly, the case selection is discussed. Secondly, the cases used for this research are explained. Thirdly, it is briefly explained how an inductive analysis with the use of framing theory has been conducted. Framing theory is already elaborately explained in the theoretical framework. With the use of the framing theory, a content analysis was conducted. After the analysis, the data from the different countries were compared. This is an integrative comparative case study (Rohlfing, 2012). It means that this research has a cross case and a within-case analysis. The cases were compared by differences in general and by differences in approach. This study deducted two hypotheses from the theory. The first hypothesis is that frames change throughout time and that possible frameshifts are visible. Another hypothesis is that different countries have different focal points when it comes to applying frames in post terrorist attack communication.

The central research question of the research is: Through what frames do political leaders present terroristic events and to what extent do these frames evolve? In order to answer the central question and to investigate the hypothesis, two sub-questions were created. The first sub-question is: What are differences and similarities found in the analysis of the different speeches within each country? The answer to this question clarified how speeches evolved in each country and what frames were used in the post terrorist attack communication. The

(25)

second sub-question is: What are the differences and similarities found in the analysis from the speeches across countries? This research question was aimed at examining the differences and similarities of the frames cross-countries and helped understanding if approaches and evolvements differed or not. In the analysis, these sub-questions were individually analysed in order to answer them in the overall conclusion.

This research has an exploratory nature because there is not much knowledge about post terrorist attack communication from political leaders and it is not based on theory testing. Therefore, it is interesting to see if perhaps, one country regards more to empathy and victims, and another country focusses more on practical issues and politics. Another interesting factor is to see if countries have changed their frames throughout time. This study lets theories emerge from the raw data in order to make a start in filling the current literature gap about this subject.

4.1.1 Case Selection

The cases in this research were chosen based on a couple of criteria. Firstly, the cases had to be in English because of a language barrier. That explains why the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia are the countries used in this research. Secondly, in order for this research to be feasible, speeches had to be accessible. Therefore, speeches of political leaders have been chosen because those speeches are most accessible. Political leaders were also chosen as spokesperson because they mostly communicate through traditional media and are quick to respond with a statement, when terrorist attacks occur. That is important because, as is stated in the body of knowledge, in times of crisis society regards to traditional media first and political leaders mostly communicate through traditional media in times of crisis. Which is because traditional media seems to be the most credible and trusted channel (Liua , Austin, & Jin, 2011) (Gadarian, 2010).

Thirdly, the cases are based upon the ‘Islamic terroristic nature’ because that was the most noticeable terrorist threat at the time of this study and that stream provided most terrorist attacks in the selected countries (NCTV, 2017). The fourth criterion was that there had to be at least several years in between cases, in order to see whether the frames and priorities changed. There needed to be two feasible cases per country. One must regard to the fact that this research heavily depended on the amount of cases possible per country. For example, Australia only had two possible terrorist cases with an Islamic nature and therefore this

(26)

research is limited to those terrorist attacks as selected cases. In addition, not all first statements after a terrorist attack were accessible, so that was also a limitation to the study.

Another important factor that played a role in the selection of the speeches was the timing of the speeches. In all cases the first speech given by a political leader after a terrorist attack took place, was used for the analysis. Also, because it was not possible to have the same leader for both cases per country, it was chosen to submit to have a different political leader as spokesperson, per case. In order to keep the significance of the attacks on the same level as possible, another criterion was that only terrorist attacks that made the ‘big news’ were selected. Big news in this research means being broadcasted on national television.

The similarities found in the case selection are; the Islamic nature of the terrorist attacks, and that each country had at least two cases. There was one other significant limitation when it came to case selection besides the language barrier and that is that each terrorist case is different. The impact varies per attack, as well as methods of operandi. Concerning the external validity of the research, one of the cases per country was as recent as possible with regard to the rest of the criteria. Therefore, all of the latest cases happened in the year 2017.

The case selection is based on cases to fit most likely with the hypothesis, with regard to the criteria mentioned above. These cases were chosen intentionally and the case selection was distributed to a typical case study design (Rohlfing, 2012). This is mostly because of the pre-set criteria.

To conclude, many factors limited the possible amount of cases that this study was able to use for this research. Out of these criteria, the cases selected in the United Kingdom are: the London metro bombings in 2005 (1) and the London bridge attack 2017 (2). The cases from the United States of America are: bombing of the Boston marathon 2013 (3) and the New York truck attack 2017 (4). The cases from Australia are: the Sidney siege 2014 (5) and the Brighton siege 2017 (6).

4.1.2 The method of Analysis

As is stated, the content analysis is based on an inductive approach for analysing qualitative data. Key features evident in the general inductive approach outline a set of procedures that are used for the analysis of qualitative data. Inductive analysis refers to approaches that primarily uses detailed readings of raw data to derive concepts, themes or models through

(27)

interpretations made from the raw data (Thomas, 2006). Therefore, with an inductive approach the researcher begins with an area of study and allows the theory to emerge from the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007). Whereas deductive analysis refers to data analysis set out to test whether data is consistent with prior theories. With the use of an inductive approach, this study was not limited by restraints from structured methodologies. With the deductive analyses, key themes are often reframed, obscured or left invisible because of preconceptions in the data collection and analysis procedures, imposed by investigators (Thomas, 2006). That cannot be the case in an inductive approach because no preconceptions and frames are pre-determined and the themes are derived from the raw data. An inductive analysis is a conventional way of analysing content in research regarding the explanation of a phenomena or when existing theory or research literature on a phenomenon is limited (Hsieh & Sarah, 2005). As is the case in this research.

Because of the exploratory nature of this research and the subjective factors, it was decided to use an inductive approach and let findings emerge from the cases. The process of analysis used for this research is explained systematically. This strategy, introduced by David R. Thomas (2006), is based on a general inductive approach for analysing qualitative data. This approach is very similar to a thematic analysis (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). It is focused on deducting themes from raw data. A theme is a pattern that captures something significant or interesting about the raw data (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). The process of this analysis is described in steps;

1. Data cleaning: This first step refers to the preparation of the raw data. Each speech selected from the cases is transcribed and printed. The raw data in this step is readied for the analysis.

2. Close reading of the data: Once the texts had been prepared, the raw data was read until the evaluator was familiar with its content and gained understanding of the themes in the speech.

3. Creation of themes: The researcher identified and defined themes apparent in the cases during this step. In inductive coding, themes are commonly created from actual phrases or meanings in specific text segments. The themes were manually derived from the multiple cases and raw data sets. Sentences that refer or are regarding to a specific theme or themes, were marked. The sentences that refer to each theme per case are presented in the overall schemes per theme. Only authentic citations of the

(28)

statements from political leaders were used to increase the trustworthiness of the research and to point out where the themes came from (Patton, 1990).

4. Overlapping coding and uncoded text: Among the commonly assumed rules that underlie qualitative coding, two are different from the rules typically used in quantitative coding. Firstly, one segment of text may be coded into more than one theme. Secondly, a considerable amount of text may not be assigned to any theme, because some of the text may not be relevant to the objectives of this research or a theme. Thus, this research reduced the overlap and redundancy with the use of this step. Text that does not refer to any subject was not marked and one must be aware that some sentences can regard to multiple themes. During this step it is also evaluated if themes made sense and if they are supported by the data (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017).

5. Continuity revision and refinement: Here, appropriate quotations were selected to justify why themes were apparent in a speech. One kept refining this for each case until a complete picture was presented. Sentences regarding a specific theme were placed under that theme, per case. They were fully quoted with paragraph, sentence and line number (See Appendix 2).

6. Total overview: After the fifth step, an overview was created. In that overview, it is shown what percentage of which theme was apparent in each case. With the percentages in each speech, this study could compare the speeches, even though the lengths differed. After that, the themes are numbered based on the biggest percentage of a specific theme, per specific case. With that numbering one could analyse which theme had the highest priority per case. Thus, it became clear which priority a political leader gave for each theme within his statement. For the cross-country analysis, averages per country for each theme were created with the use of the percentages per case. Therefore, it is also clear what priority a country, on average, gave to a specific theme. Via those statistics, countries could also be compared, which was necessary to answer the sub, - and research questions.

This strategy has three main phases (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007). The first phase is the ‘preparation phase’ (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007). This phase consists of case selection, data cleaning and close reading of the data. The second main phase is the ‘organising phase’ (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007). The organising phase is about coding the data, grouping, categorization and abstraction. This step refers to the steps, creating the themes, overlapping coding and uncoded text, and the continuity and refinement step. The third step is the ‘reporting the analysing process and the

(29)

results’ phase (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007). This step is about the creation of the total overview, in this case, and it is about creating and reporting the results (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007).

The intended outcome of this process was to discover themes apparent in the speeches in order to identify the frames, which political leaders promoted after a terrorist attack. By looking at the themes per case, it could be assessed which themes were prioritized. Via that way, it was possible to compare the different statements in general, per country, per political leader and across country. The schemes of this practise are presented in the appendices, as is the raw data.

After the analysis of each case individually, comparisons are made and differences and developments of speeches are discussed within country. When the first sub-question is answered, the differences across countries are analysed. Out of those findings, the second sub-question is answered. Based on those answers and the analysis, the conclusion is drawn and the research question is answered.

4.2 Research limitations

Several limitations in this research are worth mentioning. Firstly, for this research there was a limited amount of time for it to be conducted. Therefore, this research is kept as concrete as possible and as a result of that, existing knowledge or literature on the topic might be missed and not assessed. Secondly, due to the lack of time, only these cases were compared and analysed, which made it hard to generalize. It presents a limit on the amount of cases that could be analysed. This also applies for the language barrier. Thirdly, the impacts of the attacks are not measurable in terms of societal impact and therefore the speeches of each terrorist attack were not perfectly comparable. Therefore, effort put in the statements might also vary. That is why percentages were used in this research. Due to the different timelines, persons giving the speeches vary and some practices might be based on own preference or experience. It is important to know that one terrorist attack will never be the same as another. Which again results in the remark that terrorist cases are never perfectly comparable. Another limitation is the fact that this research was done inductively. Therefore, other researchers might find different frames or have other findings. This limitation appeals to the reliability of this research. Hereby, I acknowledge the variables that interfered with this research, yet attend you upon the fact that this research is merely a start to fill a gap in the literature for this phenomenon. This research is a basis and a starting point for further research into the post crisis communication angle.

(30)

4.3 Summary

This chapter explained how the analysis was set up and how the cases were selected. It is made clear that there were many limitations when it comes to this study in general, and to this kind of inductive analysis. In addition, there were also many criteria and limitations when it came to the case selection. However, one tried to make this research as valid and reliable as possible by being transparent about the methods and limitations in this study. From this chapter it becomes clear which sub-questions were used in order to answer the central research question and why. The research design is the basis of the study and presented the whole process of the analysis. The actual analysis and the raw data are placed in the appendices (appendices 1 & 2). In the appendices, one can verify the findings of this research and see how and why the themes are identified. In the next chapter, the results of the analysis are discussed and compared.

(31)

5. The analysis

This chapter focusses on how political leaders communicated after a terrorist attack. The cases were inductively analysed through the framing theory and compared to each other. It seeks to discover and investigate the frames used by political leaders after a terrorist attack. This chapter will begin by shortly elaborating the content of each theme in the analysis. Secondly, each case is discussed and the findings of how countries individually had presented their frame is analysed. Thirdly, the differences within-country are examined in order to analyse and compare the frames. Thereafter, the second analysis is conducted, which is focused on the cross-country analysis. The averages per country are analysed and the differences per country are assessed. After each analysis, the findings will be discussed shortly in a summary.

This study derived several themes from the raw data. Those themes were discovered by assessing the raw data and searching for reappearing, or specific themes in the speeches from political leaders. Below, the themes are shortly explained and in order to make clear what each theme entails, a quote concerning each theme is presented. Before the themes are explained it needs to be taken into account that overlap was inevitable. Several quotes in this research therefore refer to multiple themes. For example, an immediate reaction can be policy oriented and a practical announcement can also be an immediate reaction on an attack. An immediate reaction is always directly focused on the attack where a practicality not necessarily, but this makes clear that some quotes did refer to multiple themes.

Theme 1: Practicalities

This theme is about practical matters. So, sentences or statements referring to this theme are about what political leaders are going to do or did. This theme is about the general announcement, concerning actions in result of the attack. For example: ‘I have just attended a meeting of the government's emergency committee (Blair, 2005).’Or ‘Now I do intent to go to Sidney, early in the afternoon, to be further briefed by the New South Wales Police and other security agencies (Abbott, 2014).’

Theme 2: Victims, Compassion & Empathy

In post terrorist attack speeches, one usually speaks about the victims and with that expressing empathy and compassion (Ruggeiro & Vos, 2013). Therefore, this theme could not be excluded from this research. It is purely focused on statements that concern expressing feelings and support towards society and victims. A good example of such s statement is:

(32)

‘And Michelle and I send our deepest thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims in the wake of this senseless loss(Obama, 2013).’

Theme 3: Terrorism & Impact

Another theme that could not be excluded from this analysis is the Terrorism & Impact theme. This theme regards to terrorism in general and the impact thereof. Topics that are part of this theme are the goals of terrorism, the fear, how society should respond, beliefs and risks. Thus, this theme is a bit broader than most. To show this, two different examples that are both regarding this theme are: ‘But the whole of our country needs to come together to take on this extremism and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom (May, 2017).’ And ‘The purpose of terrorism is just that, it is to terrorize people and we will not be terrorized Blair, 2005).’ May’s quote is focused on how society should react to terrorism and Blair’s quote emphasized mainly on the goal of terrorism.

Theme 4: Policy

Whilst reading and inspecting the raw data, it was noticed that either a speech was a lot about policies or a speech did not regard to policies at all. Hence, this topic had to be included as well, because it held a large share in three cases. For example, in May’s speech she says: ‘So in light of what we are learning about the changing threat, we need to review Britain's counter-terrorism strategy to make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need (May 2017).’ With this statement, she is focused on reviewing current policies and looking to make sure that the police and the security services both have all the powers they need to combat terrorism. Thus, this theme is about implementations in result of the terrorist attack, which are policy oriented and focused on contra-terrorism. Another example is: ‘I am today starting the process of terminating the diversity lottery program (Trump, 2017).’

Theme 5: Immediate Reaction

This theme is about the direct reaction on the terrorist attacks. The difference from the policy theme is that this is about what happens directly after the terrorist attack and that influences that specific event directly. A good example is: ‘There, of course, will now be the most intense police and security service action to make sure we bring those responsible to justice (Blair, 2005).’

Theme 6: Emergency Services

Another reoccurring theme in the data is about the emergency services. Only one speech does not include the Emergency Services theme. This theme is about expressing gratitude towards