Framing analysis

Allen’s definition of frame (or framing) analysis is a theoretical, methodological and critical tool for exploring processes of meaning making and influence among governmental and social elites, news media and the public^{(Reference Allen2)}. Framing analysis comes from the social sciences, particularly political science, communication/media studies and sociology; the origins of framing are attributed to sociologist Goffman in 1974^{(Reference Goffman3)}. Goffman’s work produced two somewhat distinct threads of inquiry: the cognitive and the social-relational. Public health nutrition retains these threads in its work today with cognition studies attentive to how eating behaviours are learned and postmodernist research revealing how the social construction of meaning around food is influenced by contexts in the social environment.

Two successive generations of framing theorists have sharpened framing analysis and its application in the public policy realm, notably Americans Martin Rein and Donald Schön for their introduction of frame-critical policy analysis^{(Reference Rein and Schön4)} and European scholars DeWulf et al. ^{(Reference DeWulf, Gray and Putnam5)} and Merlijn van Hulst and Dvora Yanow^{(Reference van Hulst and Yanow6)} who represent broadening perspectives on how framing can be more actionable through greater attention to its socio-relational aspects. At the heart of the latter’s critique is that there are still two threads of inquiry; on the one hand, there are ‘frames’ (the noun, known through coding/measurement) and on the other, ‘framing’ (the verb, known through critical analysis) which represents the ‘work done’ in social situations by the frames.

Framing analysis has many theoretical and methodological companions under the overarching domain of discourse analysis in which it resides – rhetoric (e.g., arguments); narratives (e.g., those organised as causal stories^{(Reference Stone7)}) and interpretive policy analysis^{(Reference Wagenaar8)} to name a few. The public health nutrition researcher entering the field of framing will need to read and navigate a broad and nuanced literature and once settled on framing analysis choose their theoretical starting point and clarify their study’s intentions and epistemology.

A model template of framing analysis

The ‘childhood obesity problem’ is one of interest to public health nutrition specialists who seek better tools to advance healthy public policy to mitigate its harms. To this end, Russell and colleagues offer a concrete and effective application of framing analysis in their paper, ‘The political construction of public health nutrition problems: a framing analysis of parliamentary debates on junk-food advertising to children in Australia’^{(Reference Russell, Lawrence and Cullerton9)}. Their study applies framing theory and methods to examine healthy public policy through legislative debate on the topic of food and beverage advertising prohibitions directed at children.

Their findings show that political parties share a common understanding of the harms of childhood obesity, and thus the harm message should be incorporated into advocacy activities. However, they also identify constraints to persuasive messaging because parliamentarians’ framing of the issue of junk-food advertising to children varies by party values and ideology regarding childhood obesity (i.e., an individual child/parental supervision problem v. a food environment problem), and whether they are in government or opposition^{(Reference Russell, Lawrence and Cullerton9)}. This is despite a strong evidence-based literature implicating such advertising as at least partially causal of increased childhood obesity.

Russell et al.’s framing analysis is based on a strong theoretical framework, and methodology including extraction, coding and content analyses. The policy environment chosen by the authors is ideal as they are able to capture, through Hansards of the Australian House of Representatives and Senate, the near-verbatim statements of the highest governmental elite, namely elected members of parliament. Beginning with the broad topic of obesity, their search for extracts yields a substantive, and highly contested, policy topic – junk-food advertising to children. This is fertile ground for framing work. Their theoretically informed approach is broadly constructivist which is pertinent to social discourses, and their coding framework deliberately acknowledges the political ideologies of three dominant political parties (right-leaning, centrist and left-leaning).

Russell et al. add a psychological dimension to their framing analysis applying the work of Chong and Druckman^{(Reference Chong and Druckman1)}. This is apt among politicians conversing within a multi-party political system, where attitudes and ideologies underpin both what and how meaning is conveyed. The authors’ coding framework matrix is completed by an analysis of the articulation of a policy problem that is at once generic but also borrows heavily from Kingdon’s theory of agenda-setting^{(Reference Kingdon10)}: What is the problem?, Who is responsible? and What needs to be done? To the former question, they then seek the causal story^{(Reference Stone7)} by specifically asking: What/who is identified as the main cause of the problem? and Is the cause described as systemic or individualistic? They also add a consideration of risk/harm to the policy problem rubric.

While Russell et al.’s paper does interrogate reasons for political inertia on restrictions on junk-food advertising to children, it could have gone further by providing a practical demonstration of the use of their framing analysis as a tool for political action on the issue. From their findings, Russell and colleagues emphasise the consensus view that childhood obesity is harmful as a starting point for public health nutrition advocates wishing to frame their own messages. Rather than go further, they conclude with a hopeful message to the health advocate that if one could just get the frame ‘right,’ policy makers would be more likely to respond to this policy problem^{(Reference Russell, Lawrence and Cullerton9)}.

Using frames or framing for action

In another Australian framing study published in this journal, in this instance related to nutrition and trade policy, Baker et al. conclude with a similar refrain: ‘Framing the inter-linkages between trade and nutrition in simplistic, easy-to-understand messages may be imperative to raising the profile of the issue with public and political audiences’^{(Reference Baker, Friel and Gleeson11)}. Reviewers were satisfied when we offered a similar exhortation after extensive framing analysis work using federal and provincial Hansards on the public health nutrition problem of household food insecurity (HFI) involving Canadian parliamentarians between 1995 and 2012:

However, after publishing a series of framing studies of HFI in Canada to discern how the problem is understood and solutions posited^{(Reference McIntyre, Patterson and Anderson13)}, what legislation has been tabled in the name of HFI^{(Reference McIntyre, Lukic and Patterson14)}, why the problem has become intractable^{(Reference McIntyre, Patterson and Mah15)}, the role of political rhetoric^{(Reference Patterson, McIntyre and Anderson12)} and valence of the idea of HFI^{(Reference McIntyre, Patterson and Mah16)}, we are now more circumspect that one can actively (i.e., cognitively) reframe the issue for policy change^{(Reference DeWulf, Gray and Putnam5,Reference McIntyre, Patterson and Mah16)} . Russell et al. also add the caveat that further research is needed to develop framing strategies, calling for participatory and action-oriented research with advocates themselves^{(Reference Russell, Lawrence and Cullerton9)}.

Framing analysis for public health nutrition problems is needed to move beyond the creation of crude stereotypes of proponents’ and opponents’ views and the development of trite social marketing slogans. However, it appears from the papers of Russell et al. ^{(Reference Russell, Lawrence and Cullerton9)}, Baker et al. ^{(Reference Baker, Friel and Gleeson11)} and our own earlier work that as health scholars we tend more to the ‘frames’ than the ‘framing’. When we ask public health ‘to frame’ (verb), it means ‘using better frames’ (noun). This may be because using framing to target the socio-relational conditions within which frames do their work is a bit ethereal for public health practice. To ‘actively reframe’ implies having agency within social structures, and in practical terms a requirement to engage meaningfully in the policy process.

So while framing analysis is a tool that can absolutely be used to inform more thoughtful frames, public health nutrition specialists also need to put those frames to work in arenas capable of generating action. Fortunately, there are many schools of thought on how public health advocates might engage in the policy process; Sabatier’s advocacy coalition framework, as one example, is enduring^{(Reference Sabatier17)}, as is the role of the policy entrepreneur^{(Reference Kingdon10)}. Russell et al. ^{(Reference Russell, Lawrence and Cullerton9)} also utilise rich bibliographic references related to framing analysis and theories of the policy process to inform their study search and analytic strategies but, of consequence, these resources are less used in their discussion and conclusions. What remains untested is how frames can be used to work as tools for advocacy within policy processes.

If framing analysis is coming of age as a theoretical, methodological and critical tool with which public health nutrition problems can be explored, and presumably addressed, then the emphasis must be on using the tool for action. Hopefully, the next generation of papers will be population health intervention or critical case studies demonstrating where the ‘work done’ in social situations by reworked frames has been used in successful efforts at policy change.