A STUDY OF FRAMING IN THE B.C. FOREST CONSERVATION MOVEMENT. The - PDF document

A STUDY OF FRAMING IN THE B.C. FOREST CONSERVATION MOVEMENT.

The study of frame alignment processes involves examining the linkages between the perceptions, values and interests of individuals and the recruitment strategies employed by social movement organizations.

A frame was defined as a "framework of interpretation" that allows individuals to locate, perceive, identify and label events in the world. "By rendering events or occurrences meaningful, frames function to organize experience and guide action" (Snow et al., 1986: 464). The key argument was that "frame alignment" is a necessary prerequisite to movement participation. "By frame alignment, we refer to the linkage of individual and SMO (social movement organization) interpretations, such that some set of individual interests, values and beliefs and SMO activities, goals and ideologies are congruent and complementary" (1986: 464). Thus, it means aligning the interpretive frames of the individual and the SMO. Snow et al. (1986) identify four key frame alignment processes: 1. frame bridging 2. frame amplification 3. frame extension 4. frame transformation. These specified various conceptual categories that together made up the overall process of "frame alignment".

Frame bridging occurs when the social movement organization taps into previously unconnected "ideologically consistent or frame compatible sentiment pools" (Snow et al, 1986: 468). Frame amplification refers to the process of making salient the key values and beliefs important to a social movement's goals and activities. Proponents argue that while these key values and beliefs may be held by individuals, they exist along side a whole host of other values and beliefs and thus their importance is relatively ambiguous to potential movement adherents. Support for and participation in movement activities is often dependent on the clarification and reinvigoration of an interpretive frame. Frame extension occurs when movement leaders "elaborate goals and activities so as to encompass auxiliary interests not obviously associated with the movement in hopes of enlarging its adherent base". Snow et al. note that the programs, causes, and values that some SMOs promote may not be consonant with the lifestyles and existing interpretive frameworks of individuals. In such cases a transformation frame is required. According to Snow et al., two things are involved in this change of interpretation. First, there is a change in the perceived seriousness of the condition such that what was previously seen as an unfortunate but tolerable situation is redefined as inexcusable, unjust, or immoral. However, the development of an injustice frame is not enough to explain the direction of action. Action is dependent on whether blame is internalized or externalized. The emergence of an injustice frame must be accompanied by a corresponding shift in attributional orientation.

One criticism of the earlier work, was that depictions of framing were seen as being too static. In response, Snow and Benford defined three core framing tasks: diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing. “ Diagnostic frames involved identifying a problem and attributing blame or causality” (Benford, 1993, p. 699). Prognostic frames involve suggesting solutions to problems, “including how to achieve the solutions, i.e., the identification of general strategies (e.g., direct action, legislative, electoral), tactics (e.g., sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, petitions), and targets.” (Benford 1993, p. 699) Motivational Frames provide a rationale for action that goes beyond diagnosis and prognosis. Snow and Benford note: “Since agreement about the causes and solutions to a particular problem does not automatically produce corrective action, it follows that consensus mobilization does not necessarily yield to mobilization. Participation is thus contingent upon the development of motivational frames that function as prods to action. “ (Snow and Benford, 1988, pp. 201-202)

Framing Tactic The dimension we have labelled, framing tactic, is drawn from Snow et al.’s original set of “frame alignment concepts” and refers to the type of framing device being used: 1. Amplification , or 2. Transformation . Core Framing Function The dimension we have labelled, core framing function, refers to three basic purposes that frames can serve: 1. Problem Identification , 2. Strategies for Action, 3 . Motivational Appeals. These categories summarize concepts from several different groups of researchers (notably Snow, Benford et al.; Gamson et al.), and thus we will provide a few details about each. Problem Identification Frames involve identifying the nature and scope of problems as well as making attributions about causality and blame; this concept is derived from Snow and Benford’s “diagnostic frames”. Action Frames incorporate the concepts of “prognostic” (Snow and Benford), “collective action” (Snow and Benford) and “agency” frames (Gamson). They provide prescriptions for “solving the problem” and/or templates for individual and collective action. Motivational Frames , refer to arguments and images that attempt to draw an emotional response on the part of the receiver. Our formulation of the concept draws upon Snow and Benford’s original concept and also incorporates “injustice frames”.

TABLE 1. KEYWORD FRAME BY FRAMING TACTIC AND CORE FRAMING FUNCTION KEYWORD FRAMING TACTIC CORE FRAMING FUNCTION FRAME Amplification Transformation Problem Action Motivational Identification Civil Disobedience X Gandhi X Martin Luther King and/or the X U.S. Civil Rights Movement Ancient Forests X X /Old Growth Biological Diversity, X X Biodiversity, Diversity Wilderness X X Spotted Owl X X Marbled Murrelet X X Yew (Pacific Yew) X X Clearcut, Clearcutting X X Brazil of the North X

TABLE 1. (CONTINUED) KEYWORD FRAME BY FRAMING TACTIC AND CORE FRAMING FUNCTION KEYWORD FRAMING TACTIC CORE FRAMING FUNCTION FRAME Amplification Transformation Problem Action Motivational Identification Ecosystem X X Sustainable, Sustainability X X Giants (Carmanah Giants), X X Giant Spruce Trees Cathedral (Natural Cathedral) X X Sacred X X Selective Cutting/Harvesting X X Conservation X Preservation X X

HYPOTHESES We have developed three categories of hypotheses: 1) comparative, 2) temporal, and 3) contingency. The comparative hypotheses consider the relative prevalence of particular core framing functions and tactics overall. The temporal hypotheses consider the relative prevalence of particular core framing functions and tactics at different points in time. The contingency hypotheses examine whether the presence of particular core framing functions and tactics are contingent upon one another.

Comparative Hypotheses H1. Frame amplification occurs more frequently in the news media than does frame transformation. H2. Problem identification frames occur more frequently than either motivational frames, or action frames.

Temporal Hypotheses Amplification Versus Transformation Congruent with H1 it can be argued: H3A. Because they are cognitively simpler and tend to have greater “cultural resonance” amplification frames will be more prevalent at all points in time than transformation frames. Conversely, taking into account the cycle of protest, it can be argued H3B. Amplification versus transformation frames will be more or less prevalent depending upon the stage in the cycle of protest. Amplification frames should be more prevalent early on when the problem is being defined. Transformation frames should be more prevalent later in a cycle of protest once the “problem” has been defined and groups are working towards solutions.

Problem Identification Versus Action Versus Motivational Frames Congruent with H2 it can be argued: H4A. Motivational frames are dependent on both action and problem identification frames. Action frames are dependent on problem identification frames. It is possible, however, for problem identification frames to be presented independently of action and motivational frames. Thus at all points in time we would expect problem identification frames to be more prevalent than either action or motivational frames. At all points in time we would expect action frames to be more prevalent than motivational frames. Conversely, taking into account the cycle of protest, it can be argued: H4B. Problem identification versus action versus motivational frames will be more or less prevalent depending upon the stage in the cycle of protest. Problem identification frames should be more prevalent early on when the problem is being defined. Action and Motivational frames should be more prevalent later in a cycle of protest once the “problem” has been defined and groups are working towards solutions.