policy framing - Ryan's Dissertation

# Definitions and Concept Introduction In policy-making, framing is a process in and through which policy-relevant actors intersubjectively construct the meanings of the policy relevant situations with which they are involved, whether directly or as onlookers and stakeholders. - [[@vanHulst2016]] " ‘frames are principles of selection, emphasis and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters’ (Gitlin 1980, 6)." "strong and generic narratives that guide both analysis and action in practical situations. Such narratives are diagnostic/prescriptive stories that tell, within a given issue terrain, what needs fixing and how it might be fixed." Rein (the starting point for modern notions of policy frames) Schön and Rein theorized two types of frames in policy contexts: rhetorical frames which feature persuasive use of story in debate, and action frames which more directly inform policy programs. ## History of the Concept ```mermaid timeline title Evolution of Framing Theory section Early Foundations 1934 : George Herbert Mead : "Conversation of gestures" concept using dog fighting example 1955 : Gregory Bateson : Ur-text for frame analysis observing "play-biting" vs. "fight-biting" in monkeys section Social Psychology Branch 1959 : Erving Goffman's early work : Interactionist "definition of the situation" (more socially constructivist) 1970 : Goffman's shift : Move toward strategic interaction and more objectivist-realist framing 1974 : Goffman's "Frame Analysis" : Frames guide how participants perceive social realities section Social Movement Applications 1986 : Snow et al. : Strategic framing in social movements 1988 : Snow & Benford : Further development of strategic framing 1992 : Gamson : Social movement frame analysis section Policy Analysis Branch 1963 : Donald Schön begins work : Drawing on Bateson's concept of schismogenesis 1971 : Schön : Different actors see public problems differently 1977 : Rein & Schön : "Methodology for problem setting" - naming, selecting, storytelling 1979 : Schön : Metaphor in problem framing 1986 : Rein & Schön : "Intractable policy controversies" concept 1994 : Schön & Rein : "Frame reflection" - rhetorical frames vs. action frames section Contemporary Developments 2004 : Koppenjan & Klijn : Network governance incorporating problem definition 2005 : Verloo : Critical frame analysis 2009 : Bacchi : "What's the problem represented to be?" approach ``` According to [[@vanHulst2016]] 1. **Social Psychology/Social Movement Branch**: - Starting with Erving Goffman's interactionist work in the 1950s - Shifting toward more strategic interaction in 1970 - Culminating in his 1974 "Frame Analysis" which focused on how frames guide participants' perceptions of social realities - Later developed by social movement theorists like Snow, Benford, and Gamson who emphasized the strategic, intentional character of frames 2. **Policy Analysis Branch**: - Beginning with Donald Schön's work in 1963, drawing on Bateson's concept of schismogenesis - Advancing in 1971 with Schön's insight that different actors see public problems differently - Developing with Rein & Schön's 1977 "methodology for problem setting" which emphasized naming, selecting, and storytelling - Introducing the concept of "intractable policy controversies" in 1986 - Culminating in Schön & Rein's 1994 work on "frame reflection" which distinguished between rhetorical frames and action frames ## Frames as Descriptive Inference > this is just a little fractal quirk that I find amusing. I also think it is useful for characterizing what we must be doing when we talk about frames. - "The inferential quality of a description may derive from the latent (unmeasurable) quality of a concept, from problematic sources of data, from problematic measurement instruments or coding procedures, from missing data, from sample-to-population extrapolations, and so forth. " - Gerring - - **Frames as descriptive arguments**: Gerring identifies five types of descriptive arguments (accounts, indicators, associations, syntheses, and typologies). Consider discussing which type(s) of descriptive arguments policy frames represent. They seem to function most like syntheses (bringing diverse attributes together under a central theme) and typologies (categorizing phenomena). - **The value-laden nature of frames**: Gerring notes that "description is centered on a judgement about what is important, substantively speaking, and how to describe it. To describe something is to assert its ultimate value." This connects directly to how frames select what matters in policy debates. (fractally appropriate both to the concept of frames and the endeavour of measuring or describing frames) - **The fundamental problem of frame inference**: Gerring writes about "the fundamental problem of descriptive inference: for any given subject there are often multiple perspectives, each more or less valid." This applies directly to the challenge of identifying dominant frames in policy documents. - **The structure of descriptive inference in frame analysis**: Drawing from Kreuzer, elaborate on the five analytical stages involved in identifying frames: - Finding new facts (policy documents, statements, testimony) - Conceptualization (organizing these facts into potential frames) - Selecting evidence (determining which textual elements are representative) - Ontological calibration (determining temporal and spatial boundaries of frames) - Making cross-level inferences (from individual texts to broader policy communities) - "Concepts are abstractions and summarize characteristics of a phenomenon that are not directly observable and thus need to be inferred from observable evidence." - kreuzer - # Theory ## Policy Framing as Process | **Concept** | **Definition** | **Key Functions** | **Characteristics** | **Relationship to Framing** | **Political Dimension** | | ---------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Sense-making** | A situated process through which policy actors construct meanings when facing uncertainty or ambiguity | - Organizes prior knowledge and values - Guides emergent action - Enables pattern recognition in disparate elements | - Intersubjective and interactive - Iterative process - Takes place in midst of acting - Not consciously planned - Can involve non-human elements | Provides the foundational understanding that enables framing to occur; both a product of and prerequisite for framing | Involves multiple actors potentially seeing the same situation differently, creating complexities in policy discourse | | **Selecting** | The process of choosing which situational features warrant attention | - Reduces range of stimuli - Focuses attention - Creates manageable scope for action | - Contingent and political - Practical necessity - Draws on prior experience | Core framing device that determines which elements of reality become part of the frame and which are excluded | A political act that privileges certain aspects while marginalizing others; shapes which decision-makers and resources come into play | | **Naming** | Using language to identify and label the features selected for attention | - Communicates framing - Invokes understandings from other domains - Directs attention | - Often metaphorical - Reflects actor's understanding - May draw on cultural resources | Central framing device; naming is how selections become communicable to others | Names carry implicit power relationships and can silence alternative perspectives; reflects the framer's worldview | | **Categorizing** | Identifying things as belonging to certain types or classes and not others | - Establishes differences - Creates taxonomies - Sorts reality into manageable units | - More explicitly draws distinctions than naming - Creates boundaries between concepts - Often implied rather than stated | Framing device that structures how selected elements are organized and related to each other | Creates hierarchies and divisions that have political implications; establishes who/what belongs and who/what is excluded | | **Storytelling** | Binding together salient features into a coherent narrative pattern | - Creates causal connections - Provides coherence to disparate elements - Persuades others - Links past, present, and future | - Uses plot to weave elements together - Attributes blame/praise - Suggests what needs fixing - Can be destabilized by new elements | Achieves the binding function of framing; makes the frame graspable and actionable | Manifests discursive power; used in persuasive efforts; can enable listening across differences but also reinforce stereotypes | This table synthesizes the concepts as presented in [[@vanHulst2016]] | **Entity Being Framed** | **Definition** | **Key Characteristics** | **Examples** | **Political Implications** | **Relationship to Other Dimensions** | | -------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Substance of Policy Issues** | The world of ideas relevant to the policy issue at hand and their meanings for various interpretive communities | - Focuses on conceptual content - Involves contested meanings - Creates issue categories - Constructs "realities" that can be acted upon | - Meanings of "motherhood" in abortion policy - Meanings of "landscape" in planning policy - Framing of contraception as preventive care | - Different issue framings lead to different policy solutions - Controls what becomes visible/invisible in policy discourse - Establishes what counts as evidence | Shapes which actors are seen as relevant and how the policy process is understood; provides the foundation for the other dimensions | | **Policy-Relevant Actors' Identities and Relationships** | How the identities of those involved in policy issues are constructed and the relationships between them | - Strongly intertwined with policy positions - Connected to social/political identity - May involve emotional/psychological attachments - Resistant to change | - Actors becoming "attached" to their problems - Identities that become interwoven with beliefs about how the world is/ought to be - Social systems providing frameworks of meaning | - Makes reframing difficult as it threatens personal identities - Creates barriers to frame reflection - Adds emotional dimension to policy controversies | Identity frames can reinforce substantive issue frames and influence how actors engage in the policy process; makes reframing challenging even when substantive agreement might be possible | | **Policy Process** | The framing of the policy-making process itself through meta-communication | - Involves communicating about communication - Creates recursive sense-making loops - Functions as meta-governance - Can enable reflective practice | - Narratives about how policy came onto agenda - Commentary on exchanges between political actors - Framing of self-governing institutions - "I think that you think that I think..." dynamics | - Establishes the kind of policy-making undertaken - Shapes organizational contexts of governance - Can enable or constrain reflective practice - Influences what counts as legitimate process | Provides context for both substantive issues and actor identities; operates at a higher level of abstraction; can potentially enable reframing of the other dimensions |