Frame Analysis it Should Come

¶ … Frame Analysis

It should come as no surprise that there is some blurring and overlap between definitions of discourse and frame analysis because both processes challenge the traditional type of analysis in the social sciences. Both processes are qualitative, and based in text and context, so that it is easy to confuse the two different approaches. "Cultural discourses can include frames, and some discourses can be characterized as the broadest kinds of frames. Ideologies often do the same things frames do and are sometimes called frames" (Johnston, p.63). However, while they have similarities, there are some differences between the two different types of analysis. These differences should be outlined by the researcher conducting either type of analysis, in order to avoid confusion in the reader and to make it easier to compare similar research. Moreover, in order to understand the similarities and differences between the two approaches, it is helpful to begin with a definition of each type of analysis, investigate how the analyses are conducted, and examine areas of overlap and areas of difference.

Frame analysis is a relatively new concept that only dates back to the 1950s. It was at that time that Gregory Bateson began talking about the frame as a mental construct that explains what is going on between participants in interactive situations. Like a picture frame highlights the elements in a picture, the frame around an interaction focuses attention on specific elements of the interaction while downplaying the importance of other components. The participants in these interactions use their own interpretive frameworks in order to determine how they should interpret the actions of the other people involved in their interactions. In other words, actions are not determined objectively, but subjectively, based on the perspective of the individual actors in the scenario. Frames are selective, which means that the participants will notice some activity and fail to notice other activity. Frames can help one determine what it important, at least to the participants in the action, and what is unimportant to those same participants. Therefore, while frames may not be capable of being precisely defined, frames do have several elements: content; cognitive structure; are individual and social; are fixed cognitive structures and emergent cognitive processes; and are based on text (Johnston, pp.64-66).

Discourse analysis is also based on text. "A discourse refers to the sum total of the 'manifestos, records of debates at meetings, actions of political demonstrators, newspaper articles, slogans, speeches, posters, satirical prints, statutes of associations, pamphlets, and so on' of a particular time, place and people" (Johnston, p. 67, quoting Sewell). Of course, there are multiple forms of discourses describing the same events. "To recognize more than one discourse emphasizes that what is being discussed and acted on is never unanimous but often challenged and negated by opposing groups" (Johnston, p.67). A great example of competing discourses is to read contemporary accounts of slavery by black slaves, white slaveholders, and black slave traders during the trans-Atlantic slave trade. There are different levels of discourse: world-historical discourses; organizational discourses; and the individual production of text and speech by members of movements (Johnston, p.67).

One of the significant similarities between frames and discourse analysis is that they are not only descriptive terms about social actions, but can also help define those social interactions.

For example, both of them are based on text. An example given in the text is a study of white supremacist literature. However, this literature does not only describe the belief system of white supremacists, but interacts with others in a way that changes the text of interactions. Therefore, both frames and discourse analysis recognize the very dynamic nature of describing any type of social study. Therefore, the researcher understands that the very act of framing and coding text reflects certain underlying assumptions about how the researcher chooses to frame an issue or characterize discourse.

Another significant similarity between frame and discourse analyses is that they both generally use qualitative methods of data reduction and presentation. This is in comparison to quantitative analysis, which is more objective and generally presents group rather than individual data. This can make it difficult to apply what it learned to a broader group of people, because they are looking at specific information for different people. This does not mean it is impossible. In both frame and discourse analysis, researchers often take a two-step approach. The first step is to help define the theory, and the second step is to examine text in order to code it and see how it applies.

In addition, both discourse and frame analyses are actually well-suited to study through focus groups and other types of group research. Social movement research can be helped by the use of focus groups because the groups, like the underlying texts, not only reflect the underlying values in a social movement, but also demonstrate the ways that different groups might communicate with one another, helping explain and define a social movement. Convening focus groups helps explore social construction processes in a proactive way, which can blur the line between research and activism, a common "problem" in both discourse and frame analysis. Rarely do researchers from either perspective merely report findings; they are generally invested in the findings and believe them to be a source of encouragement for some type of social change. Focus groups permit insight into thought process, by encouraging people to reveal the thoughts behind beliefs and words without the pressure of a one-on-one interview scenario. However, much like the general society, discussion in focus groups can be dominated by those who are better informed or who have particular goals in the discussion.

Another common element of discourse and frame analysis is that they are prone to the same significant source of error: the incorrect or biased coding of texts in qualitative analysis. This is critical because researchers tend to present coded information to their audience, not the underlying data that prompted the coding. "Once coded and enumerated, the basis of the coding decision is lost to the analyst" (Johnston, p.87). Therefore, simple coding processes are important. Likewise, having multiple independent coders or a panel-system, so that coding is not simply an individual's subjective judgment can help reduce coding errors.