framing and analysts

Work in progress here...

what is a frame?

why should I care?

This essay is for you if you work in an analytical, scientific discipline, for instances - mathematical modelling and information technology. If you do, you're hopefully highly skilled in symbolic and logical manipulation, which means you can easily perceive the logical structure of arguments. But this ability comes with a downside. When two analysts end up on opposite sides of an issue, bad feeling can easily be created because both sides feel that they have "proved" that they are correct.

The end result is frequently that discussion is bogged down in technicalities. Frequently, meta-arguments develop other whether some deductive step is valid, or over the precise definition of ad hominem, etc.

The real problem, however, is frequently that the frames of the participants have produced different ways of modelling the situation. A purely analytical approach will not necessarily bring agreement at this point, since the difference is in the categories upon which the analytical discourse is based.

Why does this happen? And how can this problem be overcome - if, indeed, it can be overcome?

causes of framing mismatches

different evidence

What you have seen is not the same as what someone else has seen. However, people are not always explicit about the evidence that has gone into their framing - so it's easy for differences in direct physical evidence to be overlooked.

negative experiences

A single bad experience can condition people to take great pains to subsequently avoid whatever they perceive as the causes of that experience. This can cause framing differences in a number of ways. Firstly, people may not even be consciously aware of why they view a potential course of action in such a hostile fashion, and will fabricate logical arguments to justify their emotional reaction. If they are consciously aware of the source of their aversion, they may actually be mistaken as to the true cause(s) of the original bad experience. Even if they have a justified aversion, based on valid experience, they still need to convey this to others who will not have had the opportunity to learn the same lessons.

general psychological causes

Everyone suffers from a large number of cognitive biases that impair the process of framing. One particularly relevant bias is confirmation bias, the way that information is fitted into one's current preconceptions: this can act as a filter so contrary information is not even consciously perceived. However, even if information that doesn't fit the current frame is perceived, it can still be ignored because of cognitive dissonance, the desire to intepret evidence so as to make decisions already made appear in a positive light. Finally, there is the understandable reluctance of people to invest energy in continually re-analysing and re-modelling situations.

institutional causes

Things are the way they are because they got that way - Gerald Weinberg

An organisation will have certain patterns of behaviour that are rewarded, and certain patterns of behaviour that are discouraged. This will inevitably shape people's perceptions of what is possible and/or desirable. For instance, a company with a dysfunctional IT infrastructure may end up not pursuing improvements that need IT infrastructure changes, because attempting to push such improvements through tends to have negative consequences for the individual(s) involved.

"stretching" frames

Sometimes, people attempting to construct post hoc justifications for a desired conclusion will - deliberately or otherwise - "stretch" a frame from an area where it is valid, to one where it is inapplicable. This can be particularly hard to deal with, since refuting arguments requires refuting the implicit framework in which the discourse is occuring.

bridging the framing gap

make assumptions explicit

This is the single most powerful way to deal with incorrect frames. A large part of a frame's power derives from its implicit nature.

discuss alternative frames

Often people will be unaware that more than one valid frame exists. This is particularly true for people without a background of studying subjects that make use of frame analysis. By setting out more than one way of framing an analysis, the possibility of alternatives is opened up.

you've been framed

Don't be surprised if people deliberately set up inappropriate frames for discussing a topic. Nowadays, framing is increasingly part of any politician's armoury. Look for attempts by others to alter frames, rather than engaging with the underlying issues. If an organisation's dominated by framing-oriented shuffles rather than concrete discussion, that's not a good sign.

References

• (Gitlin, Todd. 1980. The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA & London, U.K.: University of California Press.)