Framing Science

Previous studies describe a set of frames that appear to reoccur across science-related policy debates (see references marked below *.) Originally identified in a classic examination of nuclear energy, the typology has also been further developed in studies of biotechnology in Europe and the United States. In my research, I have applied this typology to other issues such as global warming, nanotechnology, and the teaching of evolution.

The anatomy of frames. Before elaborating on the typology, a few key details need to be covered. Frames as general organizing devices should not be confused with specific policy positions. As the sociologist William Gamson and his colleagues describe, individuals can disagree on an issue but share the same interpretative frame. In other words, each frame as an organizing device for arguments and interpretations is "valence neutral," meaning that it can take pro, anti, and neutral positions, though one position might be in more common use than others. Frames and their underlying meanings are often communicated in short hand by catch phrases, sound bites, graphics, and allusions to history.

Consider the example of embryonic stem cell research. A dominant frame is that the debate is really a question of "morality/ethics". Both sides use this interpretation to argue their case in the debate. Research opponents say it is morally wrong to destroy embryos, since they constitute human life. Research supporters say it is morally wrong to hold back on research that could lead to important cures.

The "morality/ethics" frame is communicated by the use of several kinds of “frame devices” that include a) metaphors such as "scientists are playing God," or "scientists racing to find a cure," b) comparisons to historical exemplars such as the Holocaust or discovering the cure for Polio, c) catch phrases such as "respect for life," “crossing an important moral boundary,” or "it is pro-life to be pro-research" and d) photo-ops such as Bush posing with "snowflake" babies.

A Frame Typology

In this section I label and describe the latent meanings behind a set frames that previous research depicts as re-occurring across science-related policy debates. Identifying a generalizable typology has many benefits, particularly in anticipating sources of controversy, and in fashioning messages that resonate with specific stakeholders and publics.

Several of the frames listed below are linked to specific examples I have archived at this blog over the past year.

The scientific issue is essentially about, or is really a matter of:

Social Progress : Emphasis on improving quality of life, or solving problems. Alternative interpretation focuses on harmony with nature instead of mastery, an emphasis on “sustainability.”

Economic development/competitiveness : Emphasis on economic investment, market benefits or risks; local, national, or global competitiveness.

Morality/ethics : Emphasis on right or wrong; respecting or crossing limits, thresholds, or boundaries.

Scientific/technical uncertainty : Emphasis on expert understanding; what is known and unknown; invoking or undermining consensus, “sound science,” or peer-review.

A Pandora’s box/runaway science : Emphasis on precaution in face of possible impacts or catastrophe, or on science as out-of-control, a Frankenstein’s monster, includes potentially fatalism, i.e. action is futile, path is chosen, there is no turning back.

Public accountability/governance : Emphasis on science in the public versus private interest; ownership and control, responsible use or abuse of power; “politicization,” majority versus minority opinion.

Third way/alternative path: Emphasis on possible compromise position, a middle way between conflicting views or options.

Conflict/strategy: Emphasis on science as a game among elites; a focus on who’s ahead or behind in winning a debate; a battle of personalities or among groups. (Usually a journalist-driven interpretation.)

In the video interview below, I explain some of the dynamics of how the debate over climate change has been framed.

Recommended research related to the media, science, and the public:

*Bauer, M. W.; Gaskell, G. (eds.) (2002). Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

*Bauer, M. W.; Gaskell, G. (eds.) (2001). Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Besley, J. C., McComas, K. A., & Waks, L. (2006). Media use and the perceived justice of local science authorities. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83 (4), 801-818.

Bloom, P. & Weisberg-Skolnick D (2007). Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science. Science, 316, 5827, 996 - 997.

Bonfedelli, H. (2005). Mass media and biotechnology: Knowledge gaps within and between European countries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 1, 42-62.

Brossard, D. & Nisbet, M.C. (2007). Deference to Scientific Authority among a Low Information Public: Understanding American Views about Agricultural Biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 1, 24-52.

*Dahinden, U. (2002). Biotechnology in Switzerland: Frames in a Heated Debate. Science Communication, 24, 184-197.

*Durant, J., Bauer, M.W., & Gaskell, G. (1998). Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Hilgartner, S. (1990). The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses. Social Studies of Science, 20 (3), 519-539.

Hilgartner, S. & Bosk, C.L. (1988). The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 53-78.

Kirby, D.A. (2003). Science Consultants, Fictional Films and Scientific Practice. Social Studies of Science, 33, (2) 231-268.

*Gamson, WA. & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.

Goidel, K. & Nisbet, M.C. (2006). Exploring the Roots of Public Participation in the Controversy over Stem Cell Research and Cloning. Political Behavior, 28 (2), 175-192.

Lieserowitz, A.A. (2004). Before and after the Day After Tomorrow: A U.S. Study of Climate Change Risk Perceptions. Environment, 46, 9, 23-37.

McComas, K. & Shanahan, J (1999). Telling Stories about Global Climate Change: Measuring the Impact of Narratives on Issue Cycles. Communication Research, 26 (1), 30-57.

*McCright, A.M. & Dunlap, R.E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement’s Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy. Social Problems, 50, (3), 348-373.

Nisbet, M.C. (2004). The Polls: Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68 (1), 132-155.

Nisbet, M.C. (2005). The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public Support for Stem Cell Research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 1, 90-112.

*Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8 (2), 36-70.

*Nisbet, M.C. & Huge, M (2006). Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11, 2, 3-40.

*Nisbet, M.C. & Huge, M. (2007). Where do Science Policy Debates Come From? Understanding Attention Cycles and Framing. In D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, and C. Nesbitt (Eds.) The Public, The Media, and Agricultural Biotechnology. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing Inc. (pp 193-230.)

*Nisbet, M.C. & Lewenstein, B.V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23 (4) 359-391.

Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Messages and Heuristics: How Audiences Form Attitudes about Emerging Technologies. In J. Turney (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 20-25). London: The Wellcome Trust.

Scheufele, D.A. & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7 (6):659-667.

Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. (2004). Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 1, 55-74.

Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281-304.