Research on framing is characterized by theoretical and empirical vagueness. This is due, in part, to the lack of a commonly shared theoretical model underlying framing research. Conceptual problems translate into operational problems, limiting the comparability of instruments and results. In this paper I systematize the fragmented approaches to framing in political communication and integrate them into a comprehensive model. I classify previous approaches to framing research along two dimensions: the type of frame examined (media frames vs. audience frames) and the way frames are operationalized (independent variable or dependent variable). I develop a process model of framing, identifying four key processes that should be addressed in future research: frame building, frame setting, individuallevel processes of framing, and a feedback loop from audiences to journalists.Entman (1993) referred to framing as "a scattered conceptualization" (p.␣ 51), with previous studies lacking clear conceptual definitions and relying on context-specific, rather than generally applicable operationalizations. Brosius and Eps (1995) went even further, positing that framing is not a clearly explicated and generally applicable concept, but only a metaphor that cannot be directly translated into research questions.Partly because of these vague conceptualizations, the term framing has been used repeatedly to label similar but distinctly different approaches. For example, Wicks (1992) identified subtle but distinct differences between various concepts of cognitive categorization. Hamill and Lodge (1986) and saw only a terminological difference between concepts like frame, script, or schema. At the same time, studies have operationalized framing in combination with other concepts such as agenda setting or priming (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987). More recently, McCombs, Shaw, and Weaver (1997) suggested that not only are agenda setting and framing effects related, framing is, in fact, an extension of agenda setting. They used the term second-level agenda-setting to describe the impact of the salience of characteristics of media coverage on audiences' interpretation of these news stories. Perhaps as a result of these terminological and conceptual

This special issue of Journal of Communication is devoted to theoretical explanations of news framing, agenda setting, and priming effects. It examines if and how the three models are related and what potential relationships between them tell theorists and researchers about the effects of mass media. As an introduction to this effort, this essay provides a very brief review of the three effects and their roots in media-effects research. Based on this overview, we highlight a few key dimensions along which one can compare, framing, agenda setting, and priming. We conclude with a description of the contexts within which the three models operate, and the broader implications that these conceptual distinctions have for the growth of our discipline.

Research on framing is characterized by theoretical and empirical vagueness. This is due, in part, to the lack of a commonly shared theoretical model underlying framing research. Conceptual problems translate into operational problems, limiting the comparability of instruments and results. In this paper I systematize the fragmented approaches to framing in political communication and integrate them into a comprehensive model. I classify previous approaches to framing research along two dimensions: the type of frame examined (media frames vs. audience frames) and the way frames are operationalized (independent variable or dependent variable). I develop a process model of framing, identifying four key processes that should be addressed in future research: frame building, frame setting, individuallevel processes of framing, and a feedback loop from audiences to journalists.Entman (1993) referred to framing as "a scattered conceptualization" (p.␣ 51), with previous studies lacking clear conceptual definitions and relying on context-specific, rather than generally applicable operationalizations. Brosius and Eps (1995) went even further, positing that framing is not a clearly explicated and generally applicable concept, but only a metaphor that cannot be directly translated into research questions.Partly because of these vague conceptualizations, the term framing has been used repeatedly to label similar but distinctly different approaches. For example, Wicks (1992) identified subtle but distinct differences between various concepts of cognitive categorization. Hamill and Lodge (1986) and saw only a terminological difference between concepts like frame, script, or schema. At the same time, studies have operationalized framing in combination with other concepts such as agenda setting or priming (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987). More recently, McCombs, Shaw, and Weaver (1997) suggested that not only are agenda setting and framing effects related, framing is, in fact, an extension of agenda setting. They used the term second-level agenda-setting to describe the impact of the salience of characteristics of media coverage on audiences' interpretation of these news stories. Perhaps as a result of these terminological and conceptual

In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and participates in societal decisions about science and technology. We specifically highlight the role of the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal conflicts. After reviewing the cases of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their organizations. We emphasize the need for science communication initiatives that are guided by careful formative research; that span a diversity of media platforms and audiences; and that facilitate conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals.

Uncivil discourse is a growing concern in American rhetoric, and this trend has expanded beyond traditional media to online sources, such as audience comments. Using an experiment given to a sample representative of the U.S. population, we examine the effects online incivility on perceptions toward a particular issue—namely, an emerging technology, nanotechnology. We found that exposure to uncivil blog comments can polarize risk perceptions of nanotechnology along the lines of religiosity and issue support.