Advertisement

Framing: The Search for a Lens of Understanding

  • Tineke Abma
  • Sarah Banks
  • Tina Cook
  • Sónia Dias
  • Wendy Madsen
  • Jane Springett
  • Michael T. Wright
Chapter

Chapter Summary

Abstract

In this chapter you will be shown the collaborative process and steps that need to be taken to frame the research. Framing is essentially a way of looking at the world; a frame is a lens of understanding. Frameworks are critical for the interpretation and understanding of practices and lives. The process of framing consists of exploring various, sometimes unarticulated, frameworks and choosing those that are relevant to critically analyze the problems at hand, and offer insights to promote critical collective action. Exercises are presented to assist you in facilitating a group process for framing the research. Short examples throughout the chapter illustrate the concepts discussed, the challenges frequently faced when adopting this approach, and possible solutions.

Purpose

To guide you in framing the research together with the local research team.

Central Question

How do we choose relevant frameworks for critical analysis in our research?

Keywords

Frameworks Discursive power Reframing Unarticulated frameworks Ways of knowing 

Further Reading and Sources of Inspiration

  1. Gadamer, H. G. (1960). Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  2. Hopfl, H. (2006). Frame. Culture and Organization, 12(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

  1. Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, M. (2005). The same old process? Older people, participation and deliberation. Ageing and Society, 25, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. (2000) [1972]. Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-03905-6. Retrieved 19 Mar 2013.Google Scholar
  4. Baur, V., & Abma, T. A. (2011). Resident councils between life-world and system: Is there room for communicative action? Journal of Aging Studies, 25, 390–396.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2011.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baur, V., Abma, T. A., & Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2010). Participation of older people in evaluation: Mission impossible? Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(3), 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, T. (1998). The importance of mess in action research. Educational Action Research, 6(1), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, T. (2009). The purpose of mess in action research: Building rigour through a messy turn. Educational Action Research, 17(2), 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corrigan, P. W. (1998). The impact of stigma on severe mental illness. Cognitive and Behavioural Practice, 5, 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. American Psychological Association, D12, 35–53.Google Scholar
  10. Covey, S. (1996). Three roles of the leader in the new paradigm. in Beckhard, R., Hesselbein, F., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). The leader of the future: new visions, strategies, and practices for the next era. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Di Angelo, R. (2011). White fragility. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3), 54–70. http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/249.Google Scholar
  12. Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts. Notes on the politics of an urban public high school. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. (thirty second printing).Google Scholar
  15. Fusco, C. (2006). Inscribing healthification: Governance, risk, surveillance and the subjects and spaces of fitness and health. Health and Place, 12(1), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gadamer, H. G. (1960). Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  17. Gergen, K., McNamee, S., & Barrett, F. (2001). Toward transformative dialogue. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(7), 679–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, et al.: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1987). Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Habermas, J. (2003). Truth and justification. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Johns, T. (2008). In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Kemmis, S. (2008). Critical theory and participatory action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 121–138). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  25. LIndskov, C. (2009). Family centre practice and modernity. Unpublished doctoral thesis, John Moores University, Liverpool.Google Scholar
  26. Lupton, D. (1995). The imperative of health: Public health and the regulated body. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Mehrotra, C. M., & Wagner, L. S. (2009). Aging and diversity: An active learning experience (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Peters, M., & Lankshear, C. (1996). Postmodern counternarratives. In H. Giroux, C. Lankshear, P. McLaren, & M. Peters (Eds.), Counternarratives, cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces (pp. 1–39). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Putnam, H. (2004). Ethics without ontology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ulrich, B. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. New Delhi: Sage. (Translated from the German Risikogesellschaft) 1986.Google Scholar
  31. Verdonk, P., Klinge, I., Horstman, K., Huijer, M., Buchheim, E., Bultman, S., ... & Zande, H. (2013). Framing cancer risk in women and men. Gender and the translation of genome-based risk factors for cancer to public health. Gender & genes, yearbook of women’s history, 53–70.Google Scholar
  32. Widdershoven, G. A. M., & Abma, T. A. (2007). Hermeneutic ethics between practice and theory. In R. E. Ashcroft, A. Dawson, H. Draper, & J. R. McMillan (Eds.), Principles of health care ethics (pp. 215–222). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Widdershoven, G. A. M., & Metselaar, S. (2012). Gadamer’s truth and method and moral case deliberation in clinical ethics. In S. Kasten (Ed.), Hermeneutics and the humanities: Dialogues with Hans-Georg Gadamer. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tineke Abma
    • 1
  • Sarah Banks
    • 2
  • Tina Cook
    • 3
  • Sónia Dias
    • 4
  • Wendy Madsen
    • 5
  • Jane Springett
    • 6
  • Michael T. Wright
    • 7
  1. 1.Amsterdam Public Health Research InstituteVU University Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of SociologyDurham UniversityDurhamUK
  3. 3.Department of Disability and EducationLiverpool Hope UniversityLiverpoolUK
  4. 4.National School of Public HealthUniversidade Nova LisboaLisbonPortugal
  5. 5.School of Health, Medical & Applied SciencesCentral Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia
  6. 6.Centre for Healthy Communities, School of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  7. 7.Institute for Social HealthCatholic University of Applied SciencesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations