The inter-disciplinary research on framing has many useful applications. In separate projects funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Science Foundation, Nisbet, Scheufele, Brossard, and colleagues are studying how framing applies to effective communications about climate change and nanotechnology. As part of this research, social science techniques such as in-depth interviews, surveys, and media analysis are used to systematically identify the metaphors, examples, and mental frameworks that the public, journalists, and experts use to understand, discuss, and make choices about the issue.
Following peer review and publication, this research will then inform government agencies, universities, and media producers on how to better reach specific groups within the general public, build trust, and adapt their communication efforts to non-elite audiences. (Similar research on framing and climate change was recently profiled in a cover story at The New York Times Magazine and discussed in a report (pdf) by the American Psychological Association.)
Emphasizing conflict over context
Framing is one of the most prominent explanatory models that the social sciences can apply to understanding public engagement. Researchers agree there is no such thing as an unframed message. Every form of communication relies on signals that play to socially shared schemas held by audiences. The question, therefore, is how messages are framed, rather than if they are framed. Understanding this process and translating it into practice requires research.
By arguing that communications should be left to public information officers and not to scientists, Holland simplistically defines a complex issue in terms of conflict, pitting one group of researchers against the other. Reducing the argument to a question of “to frame or not to frame,” is not just simplistic, but also scientifically inaccurate. Perhaps worse, Holland reports on technical research articles without interviewing the researchers involved. Somewhat embarrassingly, he also fails to recognize that the two teams of researchers are long time collaborators, and that Scheufele and Brossard are colleagues in the same department. No doubt, if we were on the faculty at Ohio State, Holland the reporter would likely get a call from Holland the public information officer.
If the intent of writing is to elicit a response from the reader, then I should be pleased that my offering to The Observatory stimulated Nisbet, et.al. to generate a 1,600-word retort. But I do acknowledge that this was a case of these scholars taking the public information officer to the woodshed. I don’t, however, concede to the applicability of all of the points they stress.
Like most readers, I don’t claim to be a scholar of the likes of my critics, but after more than three decades of successfully reading the broad scientific literature and effectively translating it to the public, I’m confident of my ability to garner the “take-home” message from academic papers.
It isn’t unusual, or inappropriate, for readers to differ in their interpretation of the same facts.
There is great value in the scholarship offered by Nisbet, Brossard, Scheufele and their colleagues. Those of us who are not academics but who follow it intently absorb it as best we can and feel the better for it. So others should not see this as an angry confrontation between pontificators but rather as a disagreement among colleagues. Or, at least, I choose to see it that way.
The problem lies, however, between the roles of scholar and practitioner. Sitting on the sidelines and observing the communications game is not like being on the field. While the observer and reviewer can bring astute critique to what had happened, it’s the player that’s out there getting bruised. The post-game review is usually accurate but useless to the outcome of that game.
Those of us who regularly work with researchers and struggle to communicate their work to the public in an interesting and meaningful way must focus on the substance of their science and not on the readers’ susceptibility to different frames.
Boiling down my opposition in the original column, I cited what I saw as two fundamental problems:
First, journalists should have no intent in their writing other than telling the best story possible. The incorporation of framing into journalism, as Nisbet has repeatedly explained to me, is intrinsically linked to an intent for the reader to react to the information in a certain way. Certainly, all writers do want to elicit a response but routine journalism is not a call to action – it’s an offering of information. The reader should make his/her own decision on subsequent actions they might take.
Otherwise, it enters the realm of persuasive communications. If good journalism is persuasive, it is because the facts are laid out so clearly. The other option is advocacy journalism with all its pitfalls.
Second -- and I believe most important -- is the issue of time, or better yet, the lack of it. I argued that the overwhelming majority of a faculty researchers’ time is now devoted to tasks other than actual research. And that adding to them the burden of learning to be better communicators – while philosophically admirable and desirable by some – is practically impossible on a broad scale, given other constraints.
Effective communications is tough work. It takes time and effort and most researchers that I have partnered with – and there have been hundreds over the years – are not inclined to make that investment. I was recently asked, “Is it really so hard for them [researchers] to learn how to communicate?” I responded, “I don’t know how hard would it be for you [journalists] to learn how to do academic research?”
Nisbet and his colleagues ignore this point, unfortunately, since it is one of the biggest obstacles we public information officers face. Doing so, in my opinion, places them squarely in the role of non-combatants and colors the validity of some of their other points.
In an attempt at a cute closing analogy, my critics suggest that in my role as a university public information officer, I would be calling my reporter self to chew me out for getting thing
#1 Posted by Earle Holland, CJR on Wed 16 Sep 2009 at 02:14 PM
Earle,
You are still falsely defining the issue in binary terms, as a choice between either "neutral" journalism or "advocacy" journalism. Indeed, framing can be used to persuade but it can also be used to engage and empower. That's a central point of the article we wrote and an intended goal of the research we are conducting.
The first choice a journalist makes is which dimension of a complex issue such as climate change to cover. Of the many available emerging studies, trends in research, policy developments, and real world impacts, which should become the news of the day? This very act of selection by a journalist is an implicit choice to frame.
As we argue, why not base this choice not just on professional judgment, news norms, intuition, dramatic potential, or convenience but also be guided by the findings from social science research? Ask yourself as a state employee, what elements of climate knowledge might matter most to individuals living in Columbus or the state of Ohio?
As a journalist or a PIO, you should think about the needs of your audience: Which aspects of climate-related research and knowledge would be most relevant to residents of Ohio in making personal and collective choices?
Would it be dimensions of climate science that focus on polar ice and glaciers, a traditional emphasis in science coverage? Or might it be dimensions of climate science that focus on public health impacts, especially as they relate to local areas? Or studies on racial or income disparities relative to climate vulnerability across the state of Ohio? Or the work of a philosopher, who has mapped how different religious traditions might apply to moral reasoning about the problem?
Given a choice to produce a series of stories around one of these dimensions, audience research is likely to point to health impacts or racial disparities in vulnerability--even the work of the philosopher--as having greater relevance and use to wider audiences.
Moreover, when you cover climate change, do you base your narrative, choice of language, examples, graphics, images, and terms on intuition and stylistic norms that in fact might be confusing to wider audiences? Or do you base them on a systematic understanding of which metaphors, examples, and terms are most understandable and resonant with specific audiences, especially those from lower socio-economic levels?
Each of these journalistic choices has little to do with persuasion and everything to do with delivering accessible, relevant, meaningful, and impactful journalism that serves the public interest, enabling individuals and communities to connect, plan, and make choices. It's not arguing for a specific policy or advocating for a specific position.
Finally, as researchers, we are by no means sideline spectators to the practice of science communication. This very exchange is just one of the smaller examples of our active involvement in translating basic research from the social sciences into professional practice. We realize that professionals are busy, that's why we are working to translate and package our research in ways that can be easily adopted.
I personally come to this challenge from the perspective of a practitioner, having worked for several years as a PIO before heading to graduate school.
I know from that experience that if a journalist makes an honest error and reports on a study in a way that is factually wrong, then that journalist will definitely want to be alerted to the error. It certainly doesn't mean that the PIO should call and "bitch out the journalist" as you put it. Instead, the PIO should provide friendly and constructive feedback on the errors that were made.
I hope you interpret our reply to your column through that same frame of reference. ;-)
#2 Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet, CJR on Thu 17 Sep 2009 at 12:17 AM
Matt:
After reading this response, I have to say at the outset that the degree to which you presume to have the single correct opinion on this issue is astounding! While I suggest that different readers can draw different conclusions from the same facts, you dogmatically assert that an opposing view of framing amounts to my "falsely defining the issue."
I would argue that the first choice a journalist makes, contrary to what you propose, is whether there is a story worth doing. The more complex point about how that story fits into the larger context of an issue evolves as the journalist receives more information in the course of reporting. It's supposed to be that way. Journalists are not supposed to go into a story with a preconceived notion of its outcome. Doing so risks slanting the story in one direction or another. While admittedly, this does go on daily, journalists try to control and reduce it in an ongoing effort to remain fair and objective in an ever-more-polarized world.
You ask, "Why not base this choice not just on professional judgment, news norms, intuition, dramatic potential, or convenience but also be guided by the findings from social science research?" Why do you assume that we are ignorant of that social science research? On the contrary, that research is valid input into our decision-making. But, practically speaking, the influences you suggest -- professional judgment, news norms, intuition, dramatic potential and convenience -- take precedence in an ever-more-demanding news environment.
You ask me to reflect, “as a journalist or a PIO,” on "what elements of climate knowledge might matter most to individuals living in Columbus or the state of Ohio?" Having covered climate change research here at Ohio State for three decades with substantial success, I would argue that the mechanism of that coverage we use is working quite nicely. A year or so ago, one of those stories was read by nearly 123,000 viewers and was the third-most-popular science story distributed by Eurekalert that year. Countless other stories are read by thousands so we must be doing something right.
All of the interesting questions you pose as to the process are valid and useful in more expansive stories where there is time for such pondering. I would argue that most journalists instinctively do much of what you suggest unconsciously as they write. But the daily demands of journalists feeding the constant hunger of the public offers little time for such deliberations. All of us who have worked in newsrooms accept that and try to do our best.
You argue that my suggestion that as scholars, you aren’t a practitioner in the same sense as journalists and PIOs, is unfair since you “worked for several years as a PIO before heading to graduate school.” Based on your c.v., you were media and public relations director for two years for the Center for Inquiry-Transnational in Amherst and a campaign coordinator for one year for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Washington. I would respectfully argue that both positions were public relations posts, not public information posts – there is a difference – for entities that had clear and outspoken positions, as well as advocacy agendas. I doubt most people would agree that experience is comparative to the journalistic work science PIOs do at major national research universities in reporting on research.
Lastly, you inaccurately characterized my arguments as saying that researchers shouldn’t communicate but rather they should leave that to the PIOs, suggesting great arrogance on my part. That isn’t what I’ve argued. On the contrary, I suggest that you shouldn’t recommend that researchers undertake this new task – without the appropriate skill set – in addition to the great demands they now bear. A recent survey of our own researchers showed that their average work week was 57 hours long but that they could spend only 2
#3 Posted by Earle Holland, CJR on Thu 17 Sep 2009 at 10:23 AM
Meanwhile . . . And A Few Observations
Hi all. I've learned from reading this, and I'm very interested in this whole topic. Thanks for engaging with each other and for exploring the matter.
At the same time, I'd like to offer a few observations, from an outsider to the field:
First, I agree that a picture that includes only "neutral" journalism and "advocacy" journalism (as two pure, isolated, and disconnected poles) and that excludes the relevance of framing (and perhaps even other things) from the "neutral" category is not correct.
A great -- and highly damaging (to society) -- example, among many, is this: In a reasonably good number of editorials and opinion pieces in The New York Times, the issue of climate change is correctly noted as being very real, and very urgent. YET, the actual "news" portions of the paper -- and the news media in general -- have done a dismal job of communicating the genuine news aspects of the problem effectively. The issue is misunderstood by someone arguing that, nevertheless, "advocacy" shouldn't play any role in the news coverage itself. That's not the question. Instead, the problem (or at least part of it) is that the news coverage itself, AS news coverage, isn't effective (on this matter). Things like the conventional stuff (placement, frequency, accuracy, context, credible sources, etc.) AND vital things like framing (or rather, lack of effective and informed framing) are all part of the problem. I'm with Matthew on the vital importance of genuine framing (that still remains true to the facts and, importantly, considers and includes context) and on the notion that there is a "frame" to every article, whether it's thought about or not. Of course, quite frequently, the news media emphasize the drama of "conflict", and we all know about that problem.
Second, my view is this (and I think it's supported, directionally, by the sciences related to human psychology, sociality, communication, and so forth): (Please excuse the CAPS. I've put them in for emphasis, not to yell at anyone.):
More people WILL care about the matter (i.e., climate change) IF the media treat the matter AS IF IT IS WORTH CARING ABOUT. And, because the matter IS worth caring about, the media SHOULD treat it that way!
That's pretty simple. No technical terms.
I'm not suggesting that humans are perfect receivers of information or without blind spots. Instead, I'm suggesting a bunch of other things (all supported by research), including the fact that we are social beings and we tend to pay attention to -- and take seriously -- those things that OTHER PEOPLE pay attention to and take seriously. So, if a paper runs a small climate change story on page 10, once a week, and runs a story about a new baseball stadium on the front page (with a picture), that in itself communicates stuff. And then (on top of that) we have the problems stemming from poor framing, the focus on the boxing match, and so forth.
Third, while we are all having these discussions, we should realize: (As one example), even as the use of ExxonMobil products each year generates over One Trillion Pounds of CO2 (according to a basic simple estimate), and even as ExxonMobil runs very confusing and misleading ads IN the media, and even as ExxonMobil is perhaps the largest (or certainly one of them) advertisers in The New York Times, the Times hardly raises a peep to clarify matters and to provide the public with the straight scoop. And the window of time (between today and the Senate deliberations and Copenhagen) is quickly closing. So -- mainly in the interest of time -- my view is that people should set aside (for a couple months anyhow) the long-running debates such as these and simply ASK, and LOUDLY CALL FOR, the media to do what they should be doing, now.
The media are dropping the ball in big ways that matter, and part of wisdom should involve fi
#4 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Fri 18 Sep 2009 at 01:57 PM
Jeff:
You say that "More people WILL care about the matter (i.e., climate change) IF the media treat the matter AS IF IT IS WORTH CARING ABOUT. And, because the matter IS worth caring about, the media SHOULD treat it that way!"
I tend to be a traditionalist when it comes to journalism. Journalists jobs, I argue, are not to make people care -- they are to provide the best information in a fair and honest manner to readers, to cover what is news and keep readers/viewers/listeners current.
What you (and "framers") advocate is, at its core, laced with intent and oriented towards eliciting a specific reaction from the audience. That's what I think is wrong.
I certainly support the concept, as well as the practice, of framing in all forms of communication except journalism -- that's where I draw the line.
Earle
#5 Posted by Earle Holland, CJR on Sat 19 Sep 2009 at 09:20 AM
Earle (Comment 5) . . .
Thanks for your comment and for reading mine.
I think -- in my view anyhow -- you are missing a point or two. It may be a problem of "degree" rather than of "kind", I'm not sure.
Any article or piece of writing has a "framing", whether the writer consciously chooses one or not, and whether it makes sense or not, at least the way I consider and understand the concept. A writer must pick a SUBJECT in the first place. She/he must decide what aspect(s) of the subject is(are) IMPORTANT enough to write about. She/he must determine the scope and what context to provide. She/he must choose words. She/he must choose helpful examples, illustrations, or even metaphors if the subject is complex. She/he must decide who to interview and quote. She/he must decide how to write the narrative. Indeed, she/he must pick the title of the article or headline -- something that is often done very poorly, and with disregard for the actual substance, these days (unfortunately). She/he must decide whether to focus on what she believes are the actual facts, or whether to focus on the "boxing match" and drama. She/he must decide what "balance" means to her. She must decide how to tell the story, even when (and ideally) sticking completely to facts.
You see, as evolutionary and cognitive scientists know, humans naturally must focus. Even in everyday life, there are too many things going on for an organism NOT to have mechanisms of focus and interpretation and narrative. Without them, life itself (and here I'm speaking about daily life, every minute) is fragmented, aimless, and can't even be lived. The very word 'organism' has to do with "organized", of course. The question is not whether we focus and interpret. Rather, the question is one of whether we KNOW we are doing this, so we can do it well, so we can catch what's important, so we can achieve understanding, and etc., all with some broad "aim" in mind and some context.
In writing, that aim can be to achieve effective communication on an important matter. Achieving effective communication on an important matter is NOT identical to putting one's own view ahead of the facts, or extrapolating.
In terms of "caring", again, choices about (or that influence) "caring" are done all the time. They can't be avoided. Do you put a story on page 17 or on page 1? Do you give it 100 words or 1,000? How do you title it? Does it include a graphic? How well (accurately and understandably and etc.) is it written? Do you write it with care, knowing that the matter is important enough to be concerned about facts? Or do you write it sloppily, asking people with limited (or nil) credibility for their views as if they are experts? What aspect of the subject is important enough to focus on? And so forth. Writing an article in a way that conveys and demonstrates that the matter is important is NOT the same as biasing it or straying from facts.
To me it seems that you are confusing (to a degree) excellent writing, that reflects the importance of a matter, that provides key context, and that applies an understanding of how humans understand, with the idea of straying from facts or injecting bias. Of course, many times (unfortunately) both articles and opinion pieces make mistakes in any or all of these areas at once, but these considerations aren't at all the same things. They need not be the same things.
Consider: In making your comment above, are you suggesting that the media's coverage of the climate and energy issues has been great and effective, to the degree warranted by the importance of those issues? If not, then what do you think needs improvement? (Please state everything you think needs improvement, at least in your own mind. No need to answer here, of course.) Are they just "mechanical" things: frequency, placement, use of graphics? Or, do some of them -- perhaps many -- have to
#6 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Sat 19 Sep 2009 at 12:01 PM
Jeff:
Let me try this one more time and then I am going to stop, if for no other reason than frustration.
In your sixth paragraph, you, as have others, bring this vastly analytical view to the writing process, posing countless questions or choices, as if the writer consciously ponders those things while constructing phrases, clauses and whole sentences. That's absurd! Writers write! They do it as a result of a pattern of approaches that have served them well in the past and that accomplish their main goal of telling a story. That's why I drew the distinction between practitioner and spectator that so offended Matt. The kind of journalistic newswriting that I'm focusing on, and the environment in which it is done, disallows the luxury of that kind of contemplation. I feel qualified to say that having done such work for 40 years, taught graduate-level science writing for 22 years and won more than 60 national awards for science writing.
The other kind of decisions you suggest -- page placement within the paper, story length, final selection of graphics -- those are handled by editors and not newswriters. Working journalists would be elated if they had that power in the nation's newsrooms but they don't.
I'm focusing on the narrow slice of writing encompassing the work of daily reporters in covering science, medicine and the environment, although lesser for the latter. The reason I focus on this is that framers have been strongly suggesting to editor and publisher types that framing should be a part of news coverage. It certainly already is among left-leaning and right-leaning news outlets, but no one really assumes that they are concentrating on news without agenda. The media outside those extremes need to avoid that approach.
Non-writers always want to believe that the writers have a set plan in mind, as if the kinds of deliberations we were lectured on in school about a piece of literature actually took place when the writer was creating, as if Hemingway or Faulkner or Bradbury weighed more than the precision of the turn of the phrase or the essence of good story-telling. Scholars have always proposed that larger thoughts filled the authors' minds, leading them to specific verbiage. But of the half-dozen Pulitzer winners I've known and asked that specific question, the universal response was laughter at its absurdity.
As I have said repeatedly, framing is valuable and has its place but not in journalism, and not -- as this thread began with conflicting advice for researchers -- with scientists pushed into communicating with the public.
Highly detailed pseudo-explanations of why I'm categorically seeing things wrong, such as you're offering, is a perfect example of why framing doesn't work in this arena.
#7 Posted by Earle Holland, CJR on Sat 19 Sep 2009 at 02:27 PM
Earle,
In my view, it sounds like you are subdividing the task into "whose role is what" too much, removing the responsibility from the writer too much, and setting the bar far too low. And, I'm not trying to mechanize writing. I'm trying to offer suggestions to increase the effectiveness of journalism, in line with the problems I see and in line (I think) with the earlier points about "framing".
We all know that there are deadlines, word limits, and so forth, but the notion of "just writing" doesn't address the problems. At this point, I'm a bit confused regarding whether you think journalism, at present, is doing an outstanding job on these complex matters or not. Yet, I understand that we aren't getting anywhere, so I suppose we'll just leave it at that. But, if he has time, perhaps Matthew will offer his thoughts on "framing" again, to help clarify matters.
Be Well,
Jeff
#8 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Sat 19 Sep 2009 at 04:06 PM