Framing issues in the public debate: the case of human rights

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to better understand how issues may be framed in public debate. The outcomes of this debate affect organizations. The study is based on the seven types of framing identified by Hallahan (1999) and scrutinizes which of these types is utilized, and how this is done, in the case of human rights issues.Design/Methodology/Approach -For this study a secondary analysis of academic papers on human rights issues was conducted. After a literature search, 40 papers originating from 23 different journals were further analysed. Where the researchers described the framing of human rights issues, the type of framing was identified according to the typology and mode of utilization.Findings -In the case of human rights all seven framing types were found; however, the most common were the framing of attributes in which the economic or cultural context was emphasized, and the framing of situations pointing out power differences between the actors. Research limitations/implications -The study underlines the complexity of framing and the importance of awareness of framing processes. It shows that the framing typology provides valuable insights into the debate on social issues, inspiring further research.Practical implications -This study provides a better understanding of the processes of issue framing, an important part of corporate communication strategies.Social implications -The study adds to actor and audience awareness of framing.Originality/value -Insights from framing theory are applied to the debate on social issues, thereby offering a fresh perspective on research in this field and relevant to corporate social responsibility.

Public Discourse on Human Trafficking in International Issue Arenas

“…They therefore act in a similar manner to political parties [3]. Joachim [4] (p. 268) in turn argues that "NGOs engage in strategic framing processes to set the agenda in three stages: the definition of problems, theIssue arena theory focuses on public debate concerning social problems in issue arenas that are real, or virtual platforms where the attention devoted to these problems changes over time; the actors may become more or less active and new actors may emerge [20,21]. Many actors strive to participate in the debate and each actor will deploy a framing strategy to enhance the salience of their viewpoints [2].…”

“…Originally, the news media were seen as the instigators of framing [23,24]. Currently, while the power of the press is still recognized, other actors, such as political entities and NGOs, also have power as agenda setters and framers [21]. Framing is a tool for impacting other actors' views and engaging them in resolving social issues [25].…”

“…Framing is a selective process, as it stresses certain aspects over others [26]. Therefore, it follows the principles of a zero-sum game [21,27]. If a new social issue draws the attention of the public, then the attention to a previous issue may be lost.…”

“…Values are essential motivational beliefs about outcomes of favorable modes of individual behavior [33]. If frames do not resonate with the pre-existing system of values and beliefs, then an issue may be disregarded by the public [21]. A value frame thus connects a certain social issue with established values that support one view on the issue [34].…”

“…Therefore, the topic of human trafficking does not stand alone in the reports of the NGOs but is discussed in the wider context of various other human rights violations; it is consequently framed so that it is closely connected with these other serious crimes. Various types of framing which are discussed in the human rights literature are found in these documents [21]. In the sample derived from the documents of HRW and Amnesty, Amnesty in particular used a strategy called "framing of responsibility."…”