What is framing and why do I need to know about it? First response is you can’t avoid it, and if you try you inherit the default frame which is most likely what you do not want if you are trying to influence a debate. Much has been written on framing, what it means and how to use it to your advantage by various authors. There is no one universal interpretation of framing or the subtle ways it can and is used. Below are some interpretations to give you an awareness of it.

George Lakoff has written several books and papers on the concept of framing and its significance. He defines “Frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world. As a result, they shape the goals we seek, the plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our actions.” (1) Frames help us make sense of the world particularly of complex concepts such as capitalism where our understanding of capitalism is shaped by our assumptions of it and our views of it shaped by our values and beliefs. Posing the question “is capitalism good or bad”, may invoke other frames such as markets, society, fairness, etc. and our related assumptions, values and beliefs to be able to answer the question.

Simple words can also carry a context of meaning, values and beliefs such as the word marriage. To a conservative catholic this would infer a union between a man and a woman; a gay rights activist would say a union between any two people regardless of gender. For a heterosexual person it may initially mean a union between a man and a woman. If this person is specifically asked if same sex marriage should be included they would be in favour. The value or belief the person initially responded to was marriage is for heterosexuals simply because this is what they unconscientiously believed. Asking specifically about homosexuals, deeper values this person has of equality may come to the surface and include same sex into the concept of marriage.  For this person their understanding of marriage now includes same sex by making them aware of the situation but it does not conflict with their basic values or beliefs of marriage between two people in love, equality for all and no discrimination. This awareness of same sex people being in love does not change the meaning of the world marriage for a conservative catholic as it is in conflict with their religious beliefs and values.

Using the example of illicit drug use, the problem could be defined as a law and order issue. In this case the solution(s) are framed in terms of policing, crime and punishment. Alternatively illicit drug use could be defined as a social issue. In this case the frame widens to include cultural issues such as peer pressure; psychological or behavioural issues; health and safety; and legal issues. This second frame is much broader and allows more nuanced solutions applicable to different circumstances while still including a law and order aspect. In the first frame any illicit drug user is a criminal, whilst in the second frame the same user could be a criminal drug pusher if they possessed large quantities of drugs, more than expected for self use. Alternatively if they possessed only small amount for self use, no other major criminal records then the circumstances of the person could come into play and appropriate action be taken. Safe shoot up rooms are often suggested where drug use and syringe disposal is done in a safe environment to the user and also to the public. This solution does not fit in with the first frame, whilst it does in the second frame. This does not necessarily mean it is acceptable to the community to have safe shoot up rooms, it is just a possibility.

George Lakoff notes “All of our knowledge makes use of frames, and every word is defined through the frames it neurally activates. All thinking and talking involves ‘framing.’ And since frames come in systems, a single word typically activates not only its defining frame, but also much of the system its defining frame is in.” Also “In short, one cannot avoid framing. The only question is, whose frames are being activated – and hence strengthened – in the brains of the public.” (2)

There is a lot of good research in cognitive psychology; social psychology and related fields into thinking and rationality which will be covered in more detail in other sections. In short there is no such thing as some sort of universal rational thinking or decisions making based on scientific rationale. This is an oversimplification of if you don’t think in scientifically rational terms then you are irrational. This may assist in appreciating the following sections by stating the context is not rational thought versus irrational thought. It shouldn’t be interpreted as one frame is better or worse than another; or one frame is rational while another frame is irrational.

Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 “for having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty”. His book “Thinking, Fast and Slow” describes two modes of thinking used by people which can be quickly illustrated with an example. Computing 2 + 2 can be done very quickly without much effort this type of thinking is described as system 1. While computing 24 × 32 needs much more deliberate effort and is described as system 2. Characteristics of the two modes of thinking according to Kahneman are:

  • System 1 operates automatically and quickly (perception and memory), with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control. Often unconscious processes that underlie intuitive thinking (both variants of expert and heuristic). Responds more strongly to losses than to gains (loss aversion). Frames decision problems narrowly, in isolation from one another.
  • System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. Construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps. Can follow rules, compare objects on several attributes, and make deliberate choices between options. The conscious, reasoning self that has beliefs, makes choices, and decides what to think about and what to do.

Therefore need to consider many aspects of a person’s understanding of a concept such as climate change and appreciate that their values or beliefs may be different. For example saying “let the market decide” is usually used in a context of opposing any government intervention with targets, timeframes or taxes to encourage displacing fossil fuels generators with renewable energy. Such a phrase would invoke a frame about how the market works and how good it was, it would also invoke other frames depending on the individual. These frames could invoke an automatic (system 1) mode of thinking rather than an effortful (system 2) mode of thinking, a person doesn’t typically expend mental effort in thinking how markets operate and compare that to how governments operate as Kahneman explains we tend to operate on biases and heuristics. Therefore the concept of are we rational comes into question. With this in mind how much weight should be given to a polls asking do you believe in anthropogenic climate change? There will be more to say on polls and polling.

When it comes to framing and climate change and excellent account is given in “Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement” by Matthew C. Nisbet.

Typology of frames applicable to climate change
Frame Defines science-related issue as –
Social progress A means of improving quality of life or solving problems; a way to be in harmony with nature;
Economic development Economic investment; local, national or global competitiveness
Morality and ethics A matter of right or wrong; respect
Scientific and technical uncertainty What is known versus unknown; peer reviewed knowledge versus hype;
Pandora’s box/runaway science Precautionary approach; no way to avoid consequences
Middle way/alternative path A third way between conflicting or polarized views or options
Conflict and strategy Who is winning or losing the debate; battle of personalities

Source:

If the issue was climate change then the “economic development” frame could be used in two ways. First way would be to highlight the “creation of green jobs” by environmentalists advocating renewable energy. Whilst the opposite side would highlight the importance of “the loss of existing jobs and competitiveness” and/or “let the market decide”.

In the context of policy and politics, good frames have five characteristics (3). Using an economic development frame taken from above table, examples of the five characteristics of the frame are given :

Frame characteristic Climate change denier Climate change advocate
Frames are sticky let the market decide Put a price on carbon
You intuitively agree with it
(system 1 mode of thinking)		 if not the market then is would be the government and that would resemble communism The market does not pay for the damage being done and will be left for the future generations
There is a villain
(us and them)		 Environmentalists/communists/bureaucrats Capitalists/fossil fuel industry
Your opponent’s core values are at stake They want to destroy jobs and make electricity expensive for the working family Fossil fuel industry receives many government subsidies and tries to stop competition from renewable energy
Frames taps into societal undercurrents Don’t want to impede economic growth and job creation Economic greed is destroying the natural environment and causing catastrophic climate change

Source: Delft University of Technology (an online course which I recommend)

Obviously one could take any of the frame typologies and come up with characteristics of that particular frame, the most obvious observation would be the polarizing effect that occurs, it becomes very black or white, right or wrong.

The episodic frame presents a portrait, while the thematic frame pulls the camera back to present a landscape. The importance of this distinction is that the two types of frames have very different effects on how people view a given problem–and whether people will see the need for individual-level and/or broader environmental or institutional solutions to that problem. Episodic frames reduce life to a series of disconnected episodes, random events or case studies. (FrameWorks Institute “Framing Public Issues”).

Framing an issue can also take either a problem focus or a solution focus. Most publications on the topic of climate change tend to focus more of what the problem is and the expected impacts and finish with some proposed solutions. Unfortunately the trends for many of these publications are:

  • spend an inordinate amount of space delving into the problem and busting myths by deniers;
  • very high in scientific information and data which the general public does not understand;
  • disagree what solutions should be taken (one publication may advocate nuclear energy whilst another will discount it);
  • treat the problem/solution as a mechanical issue ignoring the human aspect of perceptions, beliefs and behaviours (for example, a mechanic diagnose why a car won’t run due to faulty part so replaces it so the car runs regardless of what beliefs the owner may have had).

Taking a problem focus many publications also tend to frame the problem as being us and them:

  • them: a government that ignores what science is telling us and swayed by big business – us: vote for someone else who is sympathetic to our cause;
  • them: businesses are only interested in short term profits and not longer term impacts – us: shame the organization, do not deal with the organization;
  • them: the deniers are manipulating the science to win the argument – us: prove the deniers wrong with the correct interpretation of the science, expose the deniers as manipulators of facts;
  • them: press do not give the issue of climate change adequate coverage or give deniers equal access which they shouldn’t – us: write to the press, have public demonstrations;

Trying to change them is fraught with disappointment as these external factors (recalcitrant governments, greedy businesses, climate change deniers, sensationalizing press) are not simply going to go away. There will always be them in one form or another and concentrating on us versus them becomes a battle of egos, proving they are wrong therefore we are right. The result of this can be a polarised argument that becomes blind to effective ways forward.

An alternative frame is to concentrate on solutions and even here I believe there are two ways to effectively sub-frame solutions as either episodic or thematic:

  • Episodic solution frame: specific solutions which can be carbon taxes or government incentives of some form; forms of renewable energy such as wind/solar; transition strategies to low carbon via gas; controversial solutions such as carbon capture and storage, nuclear, geo-engineering;
  • Thematic solution frame: look at the social/business environment that would encourage or promote a desirable future so need to define characteristics of desirable future.

Approaching in this manner allows a constructive discussion of what a future could look like using a thematic solution frame and why we would like to achieve it. Concentrating initially on some future vision and the why opens up the discussion so that an agreement of a future vision can be found despite the fact that people may have different motivations for wanting that particular future to be realised.

This could basically involve imagining what a future state could look like and what has worked in the past and is currently still working. The vision has to be practical and doable whilst still pushing through boundaries. Not a vision that goes against scientific knowledge such as perpetual motion machines, time travel to the past, or concept of perfect rationality in the real world. Nor can a vision be obscure or in the form of a motherhood statement such as wanting a sustainable future without further clarification of what that means in the real world.

Transitioning from a vision (whatever that may be) to something in the real world is obviously not a simple easy step. But taking the concepts of thematic and episodic frames and introducing one of my own (because I can!!) of transition frame could end up like:

  • Thematic solution frame: visionaries, big picture thinkers, completely outside the box (no experts working in an expert capacity)
  • Transition solution frame: entrepreneurs innovators
  • Episodic solution frame: this is where experts could come into their own with specific knowledge of how to create individual pieces of the vision which could be thought of as a giant jig-saw puzzle

Not necessarily distinct steps of phases but can have overlap. Big picture thinkers and entrepreneurs/innovators can make use of experts in say technical/scientific areas as to what is on the research drawing boards. Using the social sciences such as social psychology, communications and history could make a valuable contribution to any of the above 3 frames

Complexity and nuances of communication means we can switch frames and combine them subconsciously. No single frame completely dominates such that we may be in a solutions frame focusing on economic development typology or social progress typology where the problem space can be either developed countries or undeveloped countries.

An important note to make is that reframing an issue from say one concentrating on economic development to one of social progress does not mean hiding or changing truths or what another person values or believes, it is about challenging the perception or assumptions a person may have. Whereas spin, particularly in a political sense, can and does make use of frames to knowingly manipulate information. The other point is that challenging a person’s beliefs or values effectively challenges that person’s worldview (which I cover later) which is deeply held conviction and is not something that you should be able to expect to do. If you challenge assumptions, for example about what an economic development frame means to this person and how they think of themselves, it is far less confrontational. This is also what is covered later as I make ample use of frames and challenge assumptions that are made.