This paper examines the relationship between frame analysis and discourse analysis as qualitative methods in the social sciences. Beginning with definitions of each approach — frame analysis originating with Gregory Bateson in the 1950s and discourse analysis drawing on the full textual record of a time and place — the paper traces key similarities: both are text-based, qualitative, and prone to researcher bias in coding. It also explores their shared use in focus groups and social movement research. The paper concludes that while the two approaches overlap significantly, researchers bear the responsibility of clearly defining which method they employ to ensure consistency and comparability across studies.
The paper uses comparative analysis to organize its argument: rather than treating frame analysis and discourse analysis as entirely separate topics, it structures its discussion around both their definitions and their shared characteristics. This parallel-structure approach, culminating in a synthesis of where the two methods blur, is a strong model for compare-and-contrast academic writing.
The paper opens with a statement of the problem (definitional overlap), then provides background definitions for each method, then moves systematically through shared features — textual basis, qualitative methods, focus groups, coding errors, and methodological breadth — before concluding with a call for researcher-level definitional clarity. The structure mirrors the logic of a literature-review essay at the undergraduate level.
It should come as no surprise that there is some blurring and overlap between definitions of discourse analysis and frame analysis, because both processes challenge the traditional type of analysis in the social sciences. Both are qualitative and grounded in text and context, making it easy to confuse the two approaches. As Johnston notes, "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 share similarities, there are meaningful differences between the two types of analysis. These differences should be outlined by any researcher conducting either type of study, in order to avoid confusion for readers and to facilitate comparison across similar research. To understand both the similarities and the differences, it is helpful to begin with a definition of each approach, examine how each analysis is conducted, and then consider areas of overlap and divergence.
Frame analysis is a relatively new concept that dates back only to the 1950s. It was at that time that Gregory Bateson began describing the frame as a mental construct that explains what is happening between participants in interactive situations. Much like a picture frame highlights the elements within a picture, the frame around an interaction focuses attention on specific elements while downplaying the importance of others. The participants in these interactions use their own interpretive frameworks to determine how they should interpret the actions of those around them. In other words, actions are not determined objectively but subjectively, based on the perspective of the individual actors in the scenario.
Frames are selective, meaning that participants will notice some activity and fail to notice other activity. Frames can help one determine what is 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, they do have several identifiable elements: content; cognitive structure; individual and social dimensions; fixed cognitive structures alongside emergent cognitive processes; and grounding in text (Johnston, pp. 64–66).
Discourse analysis is also grounded in 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 discourse 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 compelling example of competing discourses is to read contemporary accounts of slavery offered by enslaved Black people, white slaveholders, and Black slave traders during the trans-Atlantic slave trade. There are also different levels of discourse: world-historical discourses; organizational discourses; and the individual production of text and speech by members of social movements (Johnston, p. 67).
One of the most significant similarities between frame analysis and discourse analysis is that they are not only descriptive terms for social actions, but can also help define those social interactions. For example, both are grounded in text. An illustrative example from Johnston's text is a study of white supremacist literature. Such literature does not merely describe the belief system of white supremacists; it also interacts with others in ways that alter the text of subsequent interactions. Therefore, both frames and discourse analysis acknowledge the highly dynamic nature of any type of social study. The researcher must understand that the very act of framing and coding text reflects underlying assumptions about how a given issue is characterized or how a discourse is defined.
Another significant similarity is that both frame and discourse analyses generally employ qualitative methods of data reduction and presentation. This contrasts with quantitative analysis, which is more objective and typically presents group rather than individual data. Qualitative approaches can make it harder to generalize findings to a broader population, since they focus on specific information from particular individuals — though generalization is not impossible. In both frame and discourse analysis, researchers often adopt a two-step approach: the first step is to help define the theory, and the second step is to examine text, code it, and assess how it applies.
Both discourse and frame analyses are also well-suited to investigation through focus groups and other forms of group research. Social movement research can benefit from focus groups because such groups, like the underlying texts, not only reflect the values embedded in a social movement but also demonstrate the ways different groups communicate with one another, helping explain and define the movement. Convening focus groups helps explore social construction processes in a proactive way, which can blur the line between research and activism — a common tension in both discourse and frame analysis. Rarely do researchers from either perspective simply report findings; they are generally invested in those findings and view them as a potential catalyst for social change.
Focus groups permit insight into thought processes by encouraging participants to reveal the reasoning behind their beliefs and words without the pressure of a one-on-one interview. However, much like the broader society, discussion within focus groups can be dominated by those who are better informed or who have particular goals for the discussion.
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.