Analyzing frame analysis: A critical review of framing studies in social movement research

Abstract

This critical review of more than three decades of studies of frames and framing in Social Movement (SM) research first offers a brief history of the notion of ‘frame’ in various disciplines, and then discusses empirical studies of frame alignment, frame disputes, frame resonance and master frames, among other notions. It is found that the very notion of discursive of cognitive frames remains very vague in these studies, and what are actually studied are for instance, beliefs, attitudes, goals, ideologies or values, especially how they are expressed in discourse. Also studies of relations between frames and culture, identity and discourse show that the notions of frames and framing are theoretically and methodologically unsatisfactory in empirical studies. It is concluded that the methods of the cultural paradigm of SM research may take advantage of the advances of more explicit methods in the study of language, discourse, interaction and cognition.

What’s really in a frame? The case of public marriage proposals

“…As noted by many, including van Dijk (2020), how ‘frame’ is defined and identified can vary enormously. This paper argues in favor of a more rigorous definition of the term ‘frame’ on the basis of seven crucial dimensions that are typically implicated in framing research, and exemplifies these defining criteria for several different kinds of frames.…”

Three decades of the framing perspective on social movements: Changing trends and continuities

“…Benford (1997) points out that it is ambiguous (although in our opinion it would have been more accurate to say complex), because it simultaneously implies a grammar or structure of meanings composed of the relationships of its elements and also an indexical sense or contextual content that acts as a boundary that includes and excludes the content to be taken into account. Van Dijk (2023: 8) understands that it is vague because it refers to both cognitive mental representations and cognitive and behavioural actions and includes many different types of elements: ‘beliefs, ideologies, goals, interests, values or activities’. Indeed, the concept of frame can include everything mentioned, except ‘ideology’, which was clarified as a broader concept (Snow and Benford, 2005) and not as a possible component of frames, as was initially stated by Snow et al (1986: 464).…”

“…The third type of contribution consisted of clarifications of some key concepts whose initial definitions had been indicated as insufficiently clear and/or specific, leading to excessive differences between some of their operationalizations and/or empirical measurements. This problem was pointed out by both authors within the perspective (Benford, 1997;Hewitt and Fitzgerald, 2014;Johnston, 2002) and authors outside it (Opp, 2009;van Dijk, 2023). Among the concepts pointed out with this problem is that of master frames (Benford, 1997), and their clarification by Snow et al (2019) indicates that they are CAFs used by several SMs because they are sufficiently elastic, flexible and inclusive.…”

Where does the true value of a frame analysis approach lie? A Reply to van Dijk

“…Without such a detailed analysis, the notion of frame, according to van Dijk, ‘disappears’ in the details of the text under review, leading the research exercise to become ‘analytically superfluous’ . The main problem with a frame analysis approach for Van Dijk (2023) is its lack of attention to how the interpretive process takes place:Unfortunately, these frames are not spelled out in detail but informally described in terms of the discourses that articulate them. These are fundamentally different things, also because discourses, as forms of social interaction, are always adapted to the communicative context (see, also, Skillington, 2017).…”