Frames in Production, 1995-2020

This data collection comprises two Discourse Network Analysis (DNA) databases designed to study how political “frames” emerge and spread in real-world policy debates. Political actors rarely present issues neutrally: they highlight some aspects of a situation and downplay others, shaping how audiences interpret problems and what solutions seem appropriate. While a large body of scholarship explains which frames are persuasive, far less is known about the upstream question of where frames come from, who introduces them, under what conditions, and how they diffuse across actors and institutions over time. The two databases provide structured, longitudinal evidence on framing dynamics by linking who says what to which framed interpretations and policy-relevant positions. Each database is built from text data and codes actor statements that contain at least one framing element as defined in classic work on framing: problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation. The coding makes it possible to reconstruct evolving discourse coalitions, track agreement and conflict among actors, and map diffusion pathways as frames move between parties, organizations, and other participants in the debate. Because DNA integrates qualitative content analysis with quantitative social network analysis, the databases support both (1) exploratory descriptions of coalitions and influential actors (e.g., brokers, bridges, and central opinion leaders) and (2) statistical analyses of how actors’ statements connect to specific frames and policy choices across time. Substantively, the collection is suited for comparative work on framing across issue domains such as immigration, trade, environmental politics, global health, and transparency reforms, enabling researchers to investigate how framing strategies vary by topic and institutional setting.

Political actors do not present issues objectively. They emphasise certain aspects and deemphasise others and influence the way the audience thinks about the issue, which is called a framing effect. A forest, for example, can be framed as a resource pool to be exploited, a source of artistic inspiration, a fragile and complex ecosystem, or a threat that must be tamed. Each of these alternative frames points to a different policy prescription. Moreover, not every frame is equally influential on its audience. Existing research demonstrates that emotionally compelling frames with negative information are especially effective in changing people's minds. In the recent decades, in most referendums relating to the European Union (EU), emotional arguments highlighting the risks of an increase in immigration played a significant role in persuading a segment of the public to vote against the EU treaty at hand. The importance of frames is evident in today's world. The ways actors frame issues are shown to matter in the fields of elections, immigration policy, environmental politics, trade negotiations, global health, transparency reforms and more. Although frames have been studied extensively in fields such as political psychology, social movements, international relations or political communication, the main focus of the existing research is their persuasiveness, in other words the factors that affect their persuasiveness. This project asks a neglected question: Where do frames come from in the first place? Why do actors choose the specific frames they use? The project thus aims to create a new, comparative research agenda that investigates when and how specific statements emerge in a political debate, by which kinds of actors they are proposed, and whether and how they diffuse to others. The project takes four steps in order to achieve its aim. In a first step, it uses a new methodological tool called Discourse Network Analysis (studying the content of arguments together with the networks of actors), in order to trace the emergence of specific frames in a number of selected political debates, the most important actors involved in the process, and the diffusion networks involved. In a second step, it conducts interviews with these key actors involved in framing in order to investigate the most important factors determining their framing choices and whether their respective institutions have an impact on these choices. In a third step, the project studies whether and how these patterns vary from one issue area to another (trade, immigration, environment, global health, and transparency). As such, the project offers a comparative and comprehensive answer to a crucial but overlooked theoretical question, with an innovative and mixed-method methodology.