Advertisement

Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 188–201 | Cite as

Identifying frames: A comparison of research methods

  • Frida Boräng
  • Rainer Eising
  • Heike Klüver
  • Christine Mahoney
  • Daniel Naurin
  • Daniel Rasch
  • Patrycja Rozbicka
Original Article

Abstract

Framing plays an important role in public policy. Interest groups strategically highlight some aspects of a policy proposal while downplaying others in order to steer the policy debate in a favorable direction. Despite the importance of framing, we still know relatively little about the framing strategies of interest groups due to methodological difficulties that have prevented scholars from systematically studying interest group framing across a large number of interest groups and multiple policy debates. This article therefore provides an overview of three novel research methods that allow researchers to systematically measure interest group frames. More specifically, this article introduces a word-based quantitative text analysis technique, a manual, computer-assisted content analysis approach and face-to-face interviews designed to systematically identify interest group frames. The results generated by all three techniques are compared on the basis of a case study of interest group framing in an environmental policy debate in the European Union.

Keywords

European Union framing interest groups interviews text analysis INTEREURO 

References

  1. Althaus, S.L. and Kim, Y.M. (2006) Priming effects in complex information environments: Reassessing the impact of news discourse on presidential approval. Journal of Politics 68 (4): 960–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F.R., Berry, J.M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D.C. and Leech, B.L. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, F.R. and Mahoney, C. (2008) The two faces of framing – Individual-level framing and collective issue definition in the European Union. European Union Politics 9 (3): 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, A. and Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2008) Does deliberation matter in FOMC monetary policymaking? The volcker revolution of 1979. Political Analysis 16 (4): 404–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benford, R.D. and Snow, A.D. (2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyers, J. et al (2014a) The INTEREURO project: Logic and structure. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3 (2): 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyers, J., Dür, A., Marshall, D. and Wonka, A. (2014b) Policy-centred sampling in interest group research: Lessons from the INTEREURO project. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3 (2): 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brewer, C.A. and Gross, L.J. (2003) Training Ecologists to think with uncertainty in mind. Ecology 84 (6): 1412–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daviter, F. (2009) Schattschneider in Brussels: How policy conflict reshaped the biotechnology agenda in the European Union. West European Politics 32 (6): 1118–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daviter, F. (2012) Framing Biotechnology Policy in the European Union. ARENA Working Paper No. 5, June 2012.Google Scholar
  11. Druckman, J.N. (2001) On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Entman, R. (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, P.A. and Soskice, D. (eds.) (2001) Varieties of Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kinder, D.R. and Sanders, L.M. (1990) Mimicking political debate with survey questions: The case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks. Social Cognition 8 (1): 73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klüver, H. (2009) Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis. European Union Politics 10 (4): 535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klüver, H. and Mahoney, C. (2012) Framing Policy Debates in the European Union: New Techniques to Answer Old Questions. Paper prepared for the 6th ECPR SGEU Pan European Conference on EU Politics; Tampere,13–15 September 2012.Google Scholar
  18. Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R. (eds.) (1999) The Transformation of Governance in the European Union. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kumlin, S. (2011) Claiming blame and giving credit? Unintended effects of how government and opposition frame the europeanization of welfare. European Union Politics 12 (4): 575–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lancia, F. (2009) T-LAB Pro, Tools for Text Analysis, Version 6.1. http://www.tlab.it, accessed 4 May 2009.
  21. Lancia, F. (2012) The logic of the T-Lab tool explained. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  22. Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mahoney, C. (2008) Brussels versus the beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, M.M. (1997) Frame mapping and analysis of news coverage of contentious issues. Social Science Computer Review 15 (4): 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peffley, M. and Hurwitz, J. (2007) Persuasion and resistance: Race and the death penalty in America. American Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 996–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Riker, W. (1986) The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Riker, W. (1996) The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Quinn, K.M., Monroe, B., Colaresi, M., Crespin, M. and Radev, D. (2010) How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scharpf, F.W. and Schmidt, V.A. (2000) Welfare and Work in the Open Economy Vol. 1. From Vulnerability to Competitiveness. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schattschneider, E.E. (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  31. Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2005) Measuring ideas more effectively: An analysis of Bush and Kerry’s national security speeches. PS: Political Science & Politics 38 (4): 701–711.Google Scholar
  32. Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2008) The congressional debate on partial-birth abortion: Constitutional gravitas and moral passion. British Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 383–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shah, D.V., Watts, M.D.W., Domke, D.D. and Fan, D.P. (2002) News framing and cueing of issue regimes: Explaining clinton’s public approval in spite of scandal. Public Opinion Quarterly 66 (3): 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schreier, M. (2012) Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Slapin, J.B. and Proksch, S.-O. (2008) A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science 52 (3): 705–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sniderman, P.M. and Theiault, S.M. (2004) The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In: W.E. Saris and P.M. Sniderman (eds.) Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Steinbach, M., Karypis, G. and Kumar, V. (2000) A comparison of document clustering techniques. Technical Report #00-034, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  38. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211 (4481): 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. De Vreese, C. (2005) News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal & Document Design 13 (1): 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verloo, M. (2005) Mainstreaming gender equality in Europe. A critical frame analysis approach. The Greek Review of Social Research 117: 11–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frida Boräng
    • 1
  • Rainer Eising
    • 2
  • Heike Klüver
    • 3
  • Christine Mahoney
    • 4
  • Daniel Naurin
    • 1
  • Daniel Rasch
    • 2
  • Patrycja Rozbicka
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for European Research and Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Faculty of Social Science, Ruhr University BochumBochumGermany
  3. 3.Bamberg Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of BambergBambergGermany
  4. 4.Woodrow Wilson Department of PoliticsFrank Batten School of Leadership & Public Policy, University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations