…and this is a 
Framing: still baffled.
Category: Politics • Science
Posted on: April 9, 2007 12:10 PM, by PZ Myers
To my dismay, even after a good night's sleep and a fresh perusal of the paper, after reading both of Greg Laden's thorough articles, Mooney's latest summary, Orac's claim that it's nothing but tailoring your message to your audience, and Nisbet's roundup of responses, I'm still hopelessly confused. What the heck is this paper telling me to do?
Here is my crude, primitive and confused understanding of frames. If I am an advocate for science, I should avoid saying, "I like science, and I strangle puppies!" I should say instead, "I like science, and I snuggle puppies!" OK so far, I can agree with the general concept, even if it does seem a little obvious … but then, that could be more the fault of my ignorance of the idea than anything else. Unfortunately, I'm not getting much more than that out of the Nisbet/Mooney paper.
I'm also seeing examples of bias in the work. What if my goal is to be an advocate for strangling puppies? Shouldn't my comment instead be seen as an example of good framing, trying to link my puppy abuse to a positive frame of science? I was a bit put off by the fact that the authors single out religion as something that must be respected—it gives the impression that Nisbet/Mooney consider atheism something akin to puppy strangling, a habit to be practiced in a dark closet and never to be discussed in polite company.
There's another common scientific practice (not that puppy strangling is common among scientists…) that they tell us to avoid: technical details.
In short, as unnatural as it might feel, in many cases, scientists should strategically avoid emphasizing the technical details of science when trying to defend it.
Oh, no … so we can't use this webcomic anymore?
Now we all know that we have to dole out the technical details appropriately—I've misgauged an audience a few times myself—but our possession of the data is one of our greatest strengths—if we're going to start equating explaining the evidence to puppy-strangling, we might as well hang it up and go home right now. Rather, I think I'll argue that Nisbet/Mooney are using poor framing, and what we ought to be doing is hammering away with the wonderful evidence we have, and pointing out the lack of evidence on the other side. Now it's fair to say we shouldn't explain PCR and list nucleotide-by-nucleotide differences produced by evolutionary mechanisms, but general principles and explanations of how we know what we know are a core of science; you can't simply tell us to avoid it. It's like suggesting that we could do a better job of promoting science if we could only hide that sciencey stuff.
I have the feeling that if I had a Nisbet/Mooney Training Seminar in how to frame science, I'd end up giving fluff talks that play up economic advantages and how evolution contributes to medicine with slides of puppies rather than squid, and I'd never talk about mechanisms and evidence again. That sounds like a formula for disaster to me—it turns scientists into guys with suits who have opinions, and puts us in competition with lawyers and bureaucrats in the media. It's saying that we should abandon our strengths and adopt the strengths of the other side. Bleh. I think I'll have to pass.
Comments
I have to admit I haven't had time to read the Nisbet/Mooney paper, but I'm guessing they're referring to the sort of framing George Lakoff writes about (most accessibly in "Don't Think of an Elephant!")
The idea isn't to throw puppy strangling into the equation at all, but instead to be sure that you aren't using the terms of your competitors to describe your situation. (For example, gay marriage makes people squeamish because "marriage" has been so successfully campaigned as "between a man and a woman," so instead you'd frame the argument around whether or not you think it is appropriate for the governmente to tell us who we can and cannot love. None of the facts or evidence change, it's just a question of how you sell them to the public at large. If this is what Nisbet/Mooney are arguing, I have to admit they're right on the money with this technique for science, at least in the anti-intellectual contemporary USA.
Posted by: Robin Zebrowski | April 9, 2007 12:26 PM
I think you more or less accurately or at least adequately summarize what is meant by framing in the Science piece. But for me, that thing ... that "framing" ... is roughly equal to "spinning." This is probably important.
I feel, as I've said in volumes now, that the original concept of a "frame" is actually more useful. So, consider this collection of words:
Fact
Assertion
Assumption
Belief
Observation
Hypothesis
Theory
and you can obviously add more. These words and related words and phrases have different meanings in different frames (that is what frames do) and Science needs to pay attention to the fact that when we blather outside of our frame (actually, when we sit in our frames and blather at others in other frames) we may not actully be communicating properly.
I advocate that scientists learn this and adjust some things, and at the same time the public needs to be "framed up" more than it is.
Consider how you speak to a colleague in a different science. You know that there are words that when you get to them you have to make sure that your colleague knows what you mean, because over there in that discipline they use the same word but with a different meaning.
We need the public to get on board with more of this and at the same time we need to do some of the work ourselves. In the manner of Dale Carnegie, I'll say it and I'll say it again and again: Let's try to drop the "theory" from "evolutionary theory"... this word is doing so much work out there in normal language, it DOES NOT MATTER that scientists think "theory" means a certain thing. It does not. that is not how language works. The minority does not get to define the meaning. So let's replace our phrases on that one, switch Evo. Theory to Evolutionary Biology, for instance. That's easy for us to do.
But the word "belief" and it's derivatives .. Just because the public "believes" stuff does not mean that scientists should go around talking about beliefs. We speak of observations, evidence, even facts, but not belief. The public needs to come towards us on that.
... And damn, PZ, I can't believe you spilled the beans about the puppies!!!
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 9, 2007 12:36 PM
I tell you what --- when the mainstream "legit" free press media (local newspapers included) stop ramming down our throats what a great guy Jesus was and how wonderful it is that he saved us all by his suffering and dying and how marvelous his back to life trick was and how we now have hope because of it, etc. etc. etc. (gag gag barf barf) like all are proven undisputable facts we all NEED to believe in in order to live any kind of a fulfilled and happy life... we - at least me - will become less hostile. However -- science is science and we can NEVER "never talk about mechanisms and evidence." That - dare I say it - would be a MORTAL SIN of a true order!!!
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 9, 2007 12:40 PM
Robin Zebrowski, for the win.
Speaking as a semipro rhetorician, I was into Lakoff before Lakoff was cool. Here is his article Simple Framing, which is kind of a beginner's look into what weird high-level communicators do and think about.
To recap in brief, every concept we talk about or think about evokes a rhetorical frame, a structure of connotational and denotational baggage that goes with that concept. (I mentioned the difference between connotation and denotation in my comment on the thread about the Nazi anatomy book, incidentally.) Denotation is the literal meaning of the term. Connotation is its symbolic or emotional meaning. So, for example, in the US, the most common term for the legal wedding of two individuals of the same biological sex is "gay marriage," whereas in Canada, the term "same-sex marriage" is favoured. Denotationally, the terms are equivalent. Connotationally, "gay" carries much more of a negative (pejorative) weight than "same-sex," which carries a quasi-legalistic connotation.
When scientists -- or any debaters -- pick up the terminology of their opponents, they have already conceded that connotation set. The difficulty is to find a phraseology that substitutes a completely different frame set for the one you're trying to replace. As Lakoff points out, if the existing frame lies about a concept, "the frame will stay in place and the truth will dissipate."
You're probably just overthinking... :)
Posted by: Interrobang | April 9, 2007 12:41 PM
More poor framing. We don't strangle puppies, we sacrifice them, a word that has much more positive connotations to Bible-wallopers.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 9, 2007 12:43 PM
I'd have to agree with you again, PZ, after having read the Mooney/Nisbet article, and organized my own thoughts a bit overnight. Matt has added (in a comment on several blogs including mine, but responding to Greg Laden's critique) to the references cited in their paper on framing theory and analysis. While that gives me more to read, it still doesn't add to this particular paper, nor offer any further help in terms of what we are supposed to do. Perhaps their seminar/roadshow will offer more, but for now they haven't got me jumping to sign up.
Posted by: Madhu | April 9, 2007 12:46 PM
I agree. It is probably only because I am a biologist that I have this opinion or experience, but in my opinion or experience, it seems to me that the biological sciences are the most open to this issue. The issue of having organized groups (mostly religious) claim that we are idiots and our science is all wrong.
In recent months there has been increasing "scientific debate" about global warming. But in that case I don't see either side claiming that the climate is Intelligently Controlled by the Great Thermostat.
Currently, most people believe that cell phones, computers and most of the other complex science/technology in their daily lives was created by men and women using science, and that at least some engineers still understand how these things work. They don't try to believe that supernatural powers are involved in, for example, transporting the cell phone signal from the cell phone up to a receiving tower half a mile away.
Although I sometimes get the impression that Steve Wolfram takes more credit that is due, or over-inflates the importance of his work by calling it "A New Kind of Science", I do think it is an impressive method of demonstrating to laymen how very simple rules can add up to very complex behaviors.
The interaction that most people have had with computers and computer programs so far, has not been with software designed with such very simple rules. I think this is at the heart of why people look at the complex "machines" of living things, and find it so difficult to believe that there is not a very human-like intelligence involved in the design.
The technologies we use today, including cell phones and computers, could not have evolved via Darwinian forces in the past 2,000 years. Human social and technological evolution is super-Lamarkian. We learn not only from our own experiences and the experiences of our parents and grandparents; we also learn from the experiences of thousands of other people. When Johannes Gutenberg helped make printing more affordable, an exponential leap in our power to share ideas ocurred. The Internet is now creating another similar leap.
Until people begin to experience software that has been created by simple Lamarkian and/or Darwinian sources of "intelligence" they will remain skeptical that very simple rules can create complex behaviors.
The work of climatologists and other scientists is beginning to convince people that an intelligent agent is not required to control each puff of wind and the building of each snowflake. It may be several more generations before most people can grasp some of the same ideas about biological phenomena.
Posted by: Brian Foley | April 9, 2007 12:49 PM
An excellent and trenchant point from Greg Laden, too, particularly about "theory."
"Theory." What a loaded term. It's just dripping with all sorts of connotations you don't want. How many cretinists use the "Evolution is just a theory!" (and you've got to love the semantically-squishy "just" there, as well) canard? They're deliberately confusing a precising definition with the vernacular definition. (I know you know what a precising definition is, so keep up with us, here.) And I don't mean they're getting it confused; they're deliberately muddying the waters.
To amplify on Greg Laden's point, scientists don't need to stop talking about theories (or laws, there's another good one -- how many times have you seen the "breaking the law" analogy misused?) amongst yourselves, but, when dealing with the public -- who has already been bombarded with this "theory/law" crap (or, should I say, to remove some of the negative connotation by reframing -- "who has been exposed to these vernacular-centric uses of language") -- for thirty years now, use another term. It's really as simple as that.
As it stands right now, you can't win and you can barely break even, so it's time to try something else.
Posted by: Interrobang | April 9, 2007 12:50 PM
As an audience member for "popular science", I suggest that you give it up. You're so far out in left field and creating so may straw men by now that I wouldn't know where to start in trying to give you this audience member's perspective. Just go do some science ...
Posted by: Scott Belyea | April 9, 2007 12:51 PM
If I understand the framing concept correctly, you do this by pointing out the amount of dogshit there is on the pavements, and blame the puppies for it all. That way you've framed the issue, and the puppies.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | April 9, 2007 12:55 PM
First of all - and please read the entire paragraph before jumping down my throat! - I have the utmost respect for many genuine religious beliefs and practices. That said, that respect is MY opinion and I have zero interest convincing others to agree with it (or disagree with it). Specifically, I see no reason why, if a scientist finds a particular belief wrong, or finds the very concept of religion wrong, they shouldn't say so, in whatever language they feel is appropriate. Of course, it's good social hygience not to needlessly make enemies, but it's equally good social hygiene not to finesse what you believe passionately. In other words, I often disagree strongly with Dawkins, but the last thing I'd do is tell him to shut up.
Secondly, PZ is 100% right: Remove or minimize the data, skip the technical details, and what's left is not science, but just assertions. It reduces popular science writing to a prime example of the fallacy of arguing from authority. And I'm speaking as a layperson, here. I WANT the data and technical details (explained well goes without saying).
Finally, if we laypeople have problems reading graphs, undertstanding math, and grasping how to infer meaning from data - and many people surely do - that is OUR problem, not yours. The best thing to do is not to drop the technical stuff, but help laypeople understand it better. And understand the importance of it.
Yes, indeed, that requires world-class writing skills. But it doesn't require re-framing. That requires expertise. And given that most of us have trouble becoming expert at even one thing, that is an awful lot to require of scientists struggling with knotty problems that require deep concentration and focus.
Posted by: tristero | April 9, 2007 12:55 PM
Scott,
I understand your sentiment, and that would be nice, but as long as there are politically powerful and well funded movement to shut us down we can't fiddle while the town burns. I think I mixed my metaphors, sorry.
Interrobang and others:
One of the points here is to make our rhetoric more digestible. The suggestions was made (in the Science piece, e.g.) to play to the existing biases. We should not do that because the whole point of science is antithetical to this.
But we can certainly USE the existing biases. I have found that one of the best ways to "teach" is to play to the falsehoods ... The things people believe that can be used as a "cultural receptor site" for some cool science concept or bit of information. Like the idea that you think your dog can understand your language, or that lightening never strikes twice in the same place, etc. There are a range of ideas from trivial to critical that can be used. The "public" (person) need not personally believe the falsehood .... they just have to know about it, or at least believe you when you tell them it exists.
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 9, 2007 12:56 PM
I'm not sure that this fits, but...
I wouldn't say give up your strengths, but provide some more digestible tidbits for general consumption.
If I go looking for (or write) a JAVA/C++/C# code sample, I want something readable that shows the basics, not the more thorough code I would actually use in production software.
How do I output a variable to a DOM element javascript?
This optimistic code:
function dump(text, elementName, index)
{
var elements=document.getElementsByTagName(elementName);
elements[index].innerHTML = text;
}
is a lot easier for a beginner to understand than this:
function dump(text, elementName, index)
{
try
{
if((text)&&(elementName)&&(index >=0))
{
var elements = document.getElementsByTagName(elementName);
if(elements.length > index)
elements[index].innerHTML = text;
else
{
//do error handling
return;
}
}
else
{
//do error handling
return;
}
}
catch(error)
{
//do error handling here
return;
}
}
but I would probably use something closer to the second in actual production.
When I read the technical information here, I tend to skim over some of the finer details, hoping to get a general understanding of the process. I don't know that everyone can do that.
Posted by: No One of Consequence | April 9, 2007 12:57 PM
I've said this in several different fora, so I'll keep it short here. Framing is not some alien topic. Science itself is a "frame," a way of knowing the world that is unique and self-contained. There are some topics that science can't fully address because of its limits (justice, beauty, the nature of truth, etc.) just as there are some topics that other worldviews or frames can't address. If we want people to understand the way the world works from a scientific frame, then we are definitely in the realm of science education. But - and here's where all of these discussions seem to be going off the rails - the best research on science education confirms the idea that understanding and working with framing is essential to being better science educators. Check out How People Learn and see if you agree that this National Research Council book about education can help us understand political framing.
Posted by: RBB | April 9, 2007 1:01 PM
Bob and PZ:
You can SPIN your puppy idea, but you don't frame it (at least, what you are talking about here is not framing). Framing is about meaning. So you can say "My dawgs sure could use a good stranglin ..." and in some parts of Arkansas that may mean that you need a foot massage, in some parts of Oregon that may mean you are about to strangle the puppies. The different meanings come from the same utterances uttered in different frames.
Goffmanian Frames, that is. To put this in the right frame.
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 9, 2007 1:01 PM
RBB:
I basically agree with you but I want to jump in and decouple "Frame" and "World View"
Simply (may be too simply) put, a World View is a frame, and I don't think you are saying anything here. But if we proceed assuming that W.V. = Frame we get in trouble, because the most interesting and useful stuff about frame analysis is that we are frequently ... and critically ... shifting frames in day to day live. But we don't really shift world views (sometimes, but not really) on a regular basis.
One of the most common frame shifts is the suspension of disbelief when we engage in, for example, fiction.
Being "on the same page" is being "in the same frame" ... one makes constant adjustments to keep on the same page with whom ever one is communicating, and we have problems, from very funny moments (my freinds mom: "Before your wedding, I think you should have an affair" ... gurns out she meant a party, like a shower ... ) to the totally disastrous (I suppose a good but too technical example is when NASA used the wrong "frame" ... units of measurement that one time and crashed a space ship into some planet. Or, if you've read The Sparrow/The Children of God ... when the priest says "I am not married because I live to serve others" ... if you've read the book, you know what I mean ... ouch).
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 9, 2007 1:08 PM
I think this is similar to Dawkins vis-a-vis Neil de Grasse Tyson as best illustrated by this short video:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/11/beyond_belief.html
I think both approaches have their place. We need communicators with both styles for differences audiences.
Posted by: Alric | April 9, 2007 1:12 PM
...
...
In the words of SF author Somtow Sucharitkul, the puppies are "compassionately devived."
In the words of Brent Rasmussen, second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy®, "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 9, 2007 1:22 PM
PZ asked:
"I'm still hopelessly confused. What the heck is this paper telling me to do?"
It's telling you to sell, not just explain. We do it in grant proposals all the time. If amount/intensity of framing increases from left to right (the scale might be exponential), the relative magnitudes of framing one should employ would be:
ms--talk-----most of grant app--------SA page------------------------laypeople
...with "SA page" meaning the specific aims page of your grant application, usually with a one-paragraph introduction and conclusion flanking the specific aims. Including transgenic line numbers, 30-character genotypes, etc. on your SA page is suicidal.
I think you don't get this because you aren't in a situation that involves writing grants.
Posted by: John | April 9, 2007 1:23 PM
PZ,
I appreciate Greg Laden's intense interest in framing. His latest post, however, dismisses literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers across the fields of communication, political science, and sociology.
Though he references Goffman's work from 1974, over the past three decades, research in the above fields have developed framing as a theory of media influence. For overviews and applications of the literature see the citations we reference in the Policy Forum article:
Price, V., Nir, L., & Capella, J.N. (2005). Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, (2), 179-212.
Gamson, WA. and Modigliani, A. (1989). Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
See also the latest issue of the Journal of Communication, the flagship journal in the field. It's a special issue devoted to framing and media influence. See especially the following overview:
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda-setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20.
See also this earlier article by Scheufele, possibly the most heavily cited article in the field over the past decade:
Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication 49 (4): 103-22.
On your comments about a workshop on framing, I think it would be incredibly useful and interesting to get together on the phone or in person to discuss the topic. Better yet, perhaps we or someone else could organize a mini-conference on the matter, out of which something could be published.
Best,
Matt
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | April 9, 2007 1:27 PM
I think there is an important point from the framing article that is being missed.
"Frames organize central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions. Frames pare down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis. They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible, and what should be done."
This statement doesn't say to change or dumb-down the data, but instead put it in a context to "resonate with the core values and assumptions" of audience. A good example of this is what has happened with HIV/AIDS in Africa and conservatives over the last few years. At the beginning of the Bush administration conservatives didn't really care about HIV/AIDS in Africa and nothing was being done about it. Then, someone framed the issue for them that millions of innocent women and children were dying. This resonated with their conservative beliefs that life is sacred. The issue didn't change at all but it was finally framed properly. The Bush administration and conservatives have subsequently pushed for significant funds to be directed toward research and treatment for HIV/AIDS in Africa.
The key is to "pare down the complex issues" for the intended audience. If the data will confuse the audience explain it with words instead of graphs. Simplify the most important point so it speaks to the audience and doesn't make their eyes glare over.
Posted by: Curtis | April 9, 2007 1:36 PM
RBB: Do you have a blog? You should. Collect your comments and put them all in one place.
Posted by: coturnix | April 9, 2007 1:38 PM
Matthew C. Nisbet:
As a card-carrying member of the APS, it is my Official Physicist Bastard duty to point out that hundreds of peer-reviewed papers in sociology are still just hundreds of papers in sociology. This is a special case of the mathematical principle that N times nothing is still nothing.
— Tom LehrerPosted by: Blake Stacey | April 9, 2007 1:42 PM
I think people who want to engage these belief changing arguments might find this old CSICOP article useful, "Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die."
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html
Also, another concept that might be useful would be the "Overton window," and I've got a bit of information on that in one of my blog posts:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/dont-try-this-at-home.html
Posted by: Norman Doering | April 9, 2007 1:42 PM
More seriously, I think that the claim that "framing" is "nothing but tailoring your message to your audience" (to use PZ's words) misses a big point. To put it more precisely, I think that glossing over subtleties for a freshman biology class or even "spinning" a grant proposal is not the same as doing a more-slick-than-accurate PR job for the general public. As I said at Respectful Insolence,
I couldn't give a pair of fetid dingo kidneys for a "frame shift", but changing the feedback mechanisms at work in particular arenas could do a world of good. expanded on this point:
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 9, 2007 1:52 PM
Dang it, I can't get my HTML right. That second block quote came from Torbjörn Larsson.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 9, 2007 1:53 PM
Yeah, right. I don't buy it. You're not dumb. Stop pretending to be.
Posted by: writerdd | April 9, 2007 1:58 PM
Hi Blake,
Our Policy Forum article, with its citations in the paragraph where we define framing is pretty clear as to its anchoring in the literature.
Price, V., Nir, L., & Capella, J.N. (2005). Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, (2), 179-212.
Gamson, WA. and Modigliani, A. (1989). Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
Best,
Matt
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | April 9, 2007 1:58 PM
Foley wrote: Until people begin to experience software that has been created by simple Lamarkian and/or Darwinian sources of "intelligence" they will remain skeptical
Dunno about s/w - people don't see it and don't think much about it ... and "any sufficiently complex technology is indestinguishable from magic" as the old saw has it.
Hardware, tho - now that's something people can appreciate when it's designed by a non-human process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolvable_hardware
Their link to NASA's project using a genetic algorithm to design a novel antenna is especially intuitive.
I'd guess that if nano-technology takes off, it'll involve evolutionary processes. Hopefully to positive effect.
On a related topic, I'll note the work of some literary leaders who actually know science, to further an evolutionary and essentially statistical perspective on human lives and narratives, reframing it from the folk-psychology stories we now tell:
Stanislaw Lem's science fiction
Antonia S. Byatt's essays, novels and films. Her essays in HISTORIES AND STORIES lay out the perspective explicitly.
Posted by: thwaite | April 9, 2007 2:03 PM
#18 (John) got it right. They're asking us to bring out the Specific Aims (SA) page from our R01s to do the fighting. Take the audience by the hand, tell them why its important to THEM and what you're going to do about the problem. Do it clearly, simply and concisely. We all know if we cannot do it on the SA page we're getting triaged. Its simple!
Posted by: Theodore Price | April 9, 2007 2:06 PM
Matthew C. Nisbet:
I'm not disputing the well-anchoredness of your terminology in the sociological literature, nor am I trying to imply that you invented these concepts out of whole cloth. If anything, I am trying to point out (in my fumbling way) that practitioners of the "hard sciences" may have little inclination to take grand sociological notions seriously, particularly when those grand notions sound (or can easily be made to sound) like they conflict with concepts of scientific integrity.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 9, 2007 2:08 PM
I would also suggest "A Scientist's Guide to Talking with the Media," published by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Posted by: Ken Cousins | April 9, 2007 2:10 PM
I would also suggest "A Scientist's Guide to Talking with the Media," published by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Posted by: Ken Cousins | April 9, 2007 2:12 PM
PZ, you are a teacher and a scientist. If you find that a student is not responding to the way you first present the science, I'm sure you instinctively seek to present it in a way that is closer to what the student can understand. You don't have to love the student, feel compassion for them, or even pity them; you just need to get the stuff across in the way that hits the target hardest and sticks the best. I think that's what they mean by framing.
That said, those of us who are not scientists and who also don't want to be talked down to desperately need your sort of teaching and your sort of challenging talk. I would personally and selfishly be quite upset if you changed your tone to suit the lowest common denominator. Keep on pitching those fast balls; they're the most exciting part of the game. It's our job to learn to catch them.
Posted by: Speedwell | April 9, 2007 2:14 PM
Ah... coturnix in comment #21 above asks if I've got a blog to organize all my comments on the topic. Sadly I don't, but here is probably my longest and most coherent comment on the topic, if anyone's interested in reading it (it is similar to one I posted at the Daily Kos version of one of coturnix's posts).
Shorter RBB: to be really effective science educators we already need to understand our student's worldviews/conceptual understandings of science. Framing as its discussed in the science article is really no different from that, it is just in the world of politics rather than science education
Posted by: RBB | April 9, 2007 2:19 PM
My best guess (and I can't read the article till the paper copy arrives) is that scientists frame science issues according to, well, science, and apparently they ought to be framing them like IDists do, according to wishes, moral predispositions, and whatever dishonesty seems to work at a given time.
What else could they mean? It's not like scientists give speeches on science and emphasize the downside of their work. Now they might be honest enough to mention drawbacks and negative consequences (which is commendable, not execrable), but just like anybody else they try to appeal to the audience to whom they're speaking. Perhaps they should do better, and even more so, the media ought to do better, however the notion that framing which remains honest to the scientific method doesn't frequently occur is clearly wrong.
Therefore, the idea must be that we need to find our own versions of hell and heaven for our sticks and carrots, and to utilize whatever lies might work best. Screw science and attempting to raise the public to think like scientists do, we have a propaganda war to win. And if our side wins even without the science, well, we win.
Except that we don't, because we only took this side because we wanted science itself to improve life. Not only for ourselves, but even to set free the minds of those steeped in superstition.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 9, 2007 2:21 PM
To clarify what PZ said earlier about sacrifice, I believe he was referring to making an offering to Lord Cthulhu?
Posted by: TheBowerbird | April 9, 2007 2:30 PM
Theodore wrote:
"#18 (John) got it right. They're asking us to bring out the Specific Aims (SA) page from our R01s to do the fighting."
Thanks for the compliment. The other aspect of this that I failed to mention is that grant review is the situation in which scientists act the most like creationists. Most of us can point to cases, even with applications that were well-framed, in which reviewers constructed their own frames and got even the most basic things wrong.
We then have to write a 3-page introduction that politely REframes the whole application, which then becomes more important than the single SA page, and we have to proceed on the assumption that we are likely to get one or more of the same reviewers again. I don't know about others, but after receiving a review with an unfundable score, I immediately write a perfectly honest, justifiably hostile response, show it to colleages, then delete it, before I write a response that strikes a better tone. Even after that therapy, virtually all of the evolution of this response involves softening the approach.
The irony here is that we are fighting against the human tendency to make snap decisions, brought to us by our good friend, natural selection. Science is a set of rules that helps us avoid these cognitive problems, but the application of those rules is very inconsistent. Grant review is where they are weakest.
IOW, for biologists, the easiest way to achieve a more effective frame than the one PZ uses is to pretend that the lay people are reviewers of our R01 application. Too many of PZ's posts have the tone of the response (R01 introduction) I write only for personal therapy, and that makes them ineffective for anyone but the choir.
Posted by: John | April 9, 2007 2:37 PM
Question for Mooney defenders:
Al Gore recently attempted to "frame" the Global warming reality, by comparing the earth to a baby in a burning crib. A vivid image certainly, but he drew criticism for being too simplistic, and unscientific. I thought it was a brilliant tactic (in some ways). Is this an example of framing, and is this the type of framing that Mooney is proposing?
Posted by: Scholar | April 9, 2007 2:40 PM
One of the biggest problems in this whole frame game is that their is a multi generations old body politic( we know who they are) that has had this evolution thing framed in the media (from movies to textbooks to television quips pundits and actual newscasts) as "evolution versus religion" and the public schools if they teach the controvery, still refer to Scopes, etc., rather than the billion generations of "evolution' since then--not all of which is exclusively controversial to the religious.
So the old debate lingers in the minds of Jan and Joe Q. Public, rather than re-framing( in the mass media sense of framing)the debates and advances into updated models.
In other words: get rid of the notion that the "controversy" exists between religion and science, and re-tool the controversies as debate within science. Controversy sells, but in this case, a little PR is necessary to reframe it.I think the general pereption of science being a no show at the box office is disproven by guys like you, Laden, et. al. who make science an act of every day, rather than a dry boring academic formulaic thing.
Sure you don't want to look like the proverbial 'sell out' but that term has a two edged meaning: one, sure, you like like a science profiteer( and what is wrong with that?) and two, you get peoples heads and minds turned in the right direction, while also being able to present positive face time without the typical right wing sabotage that is already framed in the media. In other words, education campaigns at the level of well crafted press releases TO the media are a good start.
Posted by: cmf | April 9, 2007 2:41 PM
PZ, I agree with the view that framing is not necessarily spinning. There's ethical framing, too. That happens for example when more than one logical path is available to explain the same problem.
Consider this simple scenario. You're pouring coffee from a thermos in a cup. Your thermos had less coffee than you thought. You're (not) able to fill 50% of your cup.
Is your cup half full or half empty?
(I know: old metaphor. But in discourse sometimes you have to choose how will you report facts).
Posted by: Elena | April 9, 2007 2:41 PM
I'm not playing dumb, I really am confused. I've got people telling me I already use frames, that I use frames well, that I use them badly, that I'm ignoring frames at my peril, what I'm describing isn't framing, what I'm describing is framing, that frames are this thing or that thing or this other thing.
I'm getting next to nothing that's practical. OK, don't call it "evolutionary theory", call it "evolutionary biology". Is that it?
Maybe I do need a course in this.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 9, 2007 2:46 PM
Here's a question. The US military hired public relations firms back in '02 to spin the Iraq War. Does the National Academy of Sciences do its own publicity work? Or does it hire outside firms?
Given that the opponents of science (both on the corporate side and on the religious side) have at their disposal extraordinary resources to push their message (think tanks, rightwing media, rightwing blogs, third-party advocacy techniques, stables of pundits, and all the rest), isnt the main problem the disparity of resources in the framing wars? The lack of progressive infrastructure for framing and publicizing science is part and parcel of the disparity of resources between conservatives and progressives across the board.
In the long run this disparity is going to have to be corrected by the addition of more progressive institutions that counterveil the conservative think tanks. In other words, scientists and scientific orgs need to strategize how to build these institutions effectively. This will eventually have the additional benefit of leaving the science to the scientists and the framing to the framers. Whether or not the NAS picks up on this idea (could be problematic for the government), certainly independent scientific organizations should. Finally, it has to be pointed out that this approach does not buy into the other side's framing - it only addresses the power disparity on a purely institutional/political level.
Posted by: Splash | April 9, 2007 2:47 PM
For those of us allergic to spinning/doctoring, the main problem sometimes is deciding whether one framing choice is "better" to transmit the message, or -why not- the "winner." This is illustrated in an paper that you (and your readers here) may have read in the article that first presented it (I read it 25 years ago in med school):
Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. To combat the disease, two alternative programs are proposed, A or B.
If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
If program B is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved.
Which of the two programs would you favor?
Posted by: Elena | April 9, 2007 2:48 PM
"Frames" and "framing" are fairly old concepts in, say, cultural studies and critical theory. I think the jargon tends to get in the way of understanding what's being said here.
I am going to restate what I see as the argument of the too-brief Science piece.
1. Society is now faced with a number of policy issues upon which some rather complicated science crucially bears.
1a. Science because it is in possession of applicable technical knowledge on these matters, has a stake in seeing that policy is in consonance with the technical findings.
2. There is no way on god's green earth that anyone is going to be able to teach the American people enough science to judge any of these matters on their scientific merits on a time scale that will prevent political/policy catastrophe.
3. Presently, people make their judgments on these technical matters using a number of handy "frames" which are essentially heuristics that they employ to make decisions on a range of complex issues in their lives, as well as to make judgments in politics, culture, etc. etc.
4. Science persistently tries to educate through these policy issues in spite of 2 & 3. (Here I disagree, I think science just generally tends to misread what "frames" are being employed and usually goes straight for the "Don't worry, leave it to the experts" frame, which is rather out of date.
5. Scientists with an interest in policy issues should acquaint themselves with some of the frames folks are using to pass judgment on their work, and start to anticipate which frames their work should be put in and how and to build their messages to facilitate favorable framing.
From a theoretical standpoint: great.
From a practical standpoint, I've never seen anyone who has told us what frames folks favor for what that doesn't sound more stupid than it should.
I think there are some people who have a great sense of how people frame things (your PT Barnum-esque folks--Madonna, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Karl Rove, whoever) but I've never seen:
a) anyone spell out how this is done or
b) do it with something where correspondence with reality IS still an important issue (it's not an issue for art or fashion; and doesn't register with certain political types, apparently).
Posted by: Oran Kelley | April 9, 2007 2:53 PM
How bout if we frame it like this PZ...
"ya can't teach an old dog new tricks".
Actually that's your best bet here, is to duck this one... there are a bunch of folks who are quite vocal (Christians?), who would like to see this who framing thing as putting old PZ back in his place. In my opinion, they are barking up the wrong tree (to keep the dog analogy going), I don't think the Mooney paper is aimed at PZ. Let it die a peaceful death, or if there is something really useful in it, we will get the picture, even tired angry old PZ. Who knows, the damage has probably already been done, PZ may no longer have the chutzpa to talk about abortion clinic shooters, or the assault on civil rights (same sex marriage ) in South Carolina.
Posted by: Scholar | April 9, 2007 3:04 PM
I think I can address this from an advertising standpoint.
I work in pharma marketing/advertising. No I'm not evil.
Say you have a population that are afflicted with a disease with various methods of treatment. One being an oinment that has to be applied twice a day which is smelly and messy, one being a systemic drug (pill) that has to be taken once a day but has some nasty side effects and becomes ineffective after say 8 months, and there's the drug that you want people to take that can be easily self injected once a week over a long extended period of time and is the most effective of the options.
How do you get people to give themselves a shot?
You have to understand the patient's needs and desires. How they deal with their illness. You have to answer their questions and prove your drug is worth it.
Once you do, through lots of research it's much easier to target these people and encourage them to give the drug a try.
The need to believe in something greater, bigger and more powerful?
Much more difficult because people have many many personal reasons for it.
Does science need a warm friendly face? Sure. Does atheism? Sure.
The problem is that no matter how well informed and educated some people may be...
They're just not going to ever give themselves the shot.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 9, 2007 3:09 PM
PZ: Yes, you are correct. The only really useful thing anyone has said so far is that one thing I said. (about Evolutionary theo...oh, I mean, Evolutionary Biology).
I really do think that most of this "framing" stuff people are talking about is spinning, and spinning is useful but dangerous and must be better justified than it is right now.
The Goffmanian Frame concept is better than the sociological concept simply because Anthropologists are better at theory and sociologists are better at other stuff. This does not mean that I don't think most cultural anthropologists shouldn't be taken out in the woods and strangled with the puppies, but for god sake, save the linguists, they have uses!
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 9, 2007 3:12 PM
Steve:
How do you get people to give themselves a shot?
There are societies in which people are already totally cool with giving themselves shots. This is where your evil pharmaceutical buddies dumb the out of date ampules of stuff.
The point being not to bash the pharmacy... I'd rather stick to the point (ouch)... Many Americans dont' swallow science, while in other cultures science is broadly accepted.
My proposal all along has been to make some adjustments on the supply side of the information (the scientists) but to also bring the American public in line with much of the rest of the (western?) world through the education process (in all it's forms, yes yes, even home schooling if you must).
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 9, 2007 3:16 PM
But I'm saying that no matter how well you frame your message and educate your audience some will never accept what you say.
There are people who despite knowing that the injectable drug is better, refuse to do it.
They say... I don't like putting drugs into my body. Even if they're taking pills, they see that as different. And some won't even take pills.
To say we need to frame science for the public... is fine. But rarely are there scientists that can do it. Maybe they do need to be trained. But it's not even remotely easy to do.
Try listening to a focus group sometime.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 9, 2007 3:29 PM
Can science be argued in soundbites?
Yes.
Ex: We have the fossils. We win.
Notice that the above also constitutes an example of a soundbite-sized argument in the debate about how to present science.
Posted by: Chris Hallquist | April 9, 2007 3:38 PM
Now I'M confused... is there some notion here, among actual scientists, that "science a" > "science b" (as long as science b is sociology)? It's difficult to describe how that makes me feel, as a researcher who is not exclusively focused on physics, chemistry, or biology. If you refuse to take one discipline seriously because of your preconcieved notions about its integrity (ignoring, for example, the data and statistics that demonstrate reliable effects), then you have a COMPLETE and ACCURATE understanding of how creationists view evolution.
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding things here, I suspect we're having a framing problem of our own.
Posted by: Brian | April 9, 2007 3:40 PM
To say we need to frame science for the public... is fine. But rarely are there scientists that can do it. Maybe they do need to be trained. But it's not even remotely easy to do.
This smells a little like the original "scientists are crappy communicators" myth, but nonetheless I'm inclined to agree. Which is why we need to bring the public up to speed as well.
I find it interesting that we are having this sudden explosive dialog as though no one has ever thought about this before, but I guarantee that people have. Well, there are scientists, social scientists and philosophers who have, and there are some great citations above.
But it is very important to note that creationists have understood this issue far longer and far better and put it to better use than scientists have. The "theory" issue is a key case in point.
Most teachers in HS and college insist on getting the students to understand that "scientists use the word "theory" differently than the general public does"..
Has anyone had this experience: You cover that, your teaching assistants cover it, the textbook covers it. Then, half way downstream in the semester, a student raises his hand and says "but, this evolution thing is only a theory, right?" And 15% of the other students brighten up and nod along.
Meanwhile read or listen to any creationist rhetoric. The idea that "evolution is only a theory" is number one, number two, number three and number ten on their top ten list.
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 9, 2007 3:51 PM
This smells a little like the original "scientists are crappy communicators" myth
Why is this a myth?
Many Americans dont' swallow science, while in other cultures science is broadly accepted.
Why is this NOT a myth, at least insofar as you seem to think it reflects a greater understanding of science elsewhere. I don't think a greater European acceptance of science is evident in, say, the GMO debate.
And is the "greater acceptance" you do see simply respect for social authority rather than an actual understanding?
Posted by: Oran Kelley | April 9, 2007 4:05 PM
I think what I'm trying to say is that alot of people already have the notion that science is "hard work" (as Bush might say) and they'll never understand it, and science is often or unimportant.
Science is hard and people don't like to be reminded of their ignorance. And I think scientists have a hard time distilling it down into digestable, easy to understand or even pedestrain terms. It goes against alot of what they've spent their lives doing... which is gaining more knowledge.
Being extremely smart or knowledgeable (a nerd or geek) isn't even a positive trait in our society... but if you can sell an idea, no matter how absurd. You're to be respected.
Scientists are not good bullshitters.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 9, 2007 4:06 PM
Why doesn't every grant application and scientific publication require a "lay" abstract? Lay abstracts are a great way to think about framing your work for a general audience.
It's a great exercise to write a lay abstract and pass it around to your non-scientist friends, then ask them to describe it back to you. You will almost certainly have to make revisions to make it more clear. Would requiring a lay abstract be a useful step to get scientists to spend a little bit more time thinking about the frame of their work?
Posted by: Curtis | April 9, 2007 4:21 PM
But a lay abstract requirement would essentially constrain science to those topics that non-experts would understand. There are far too many topics that need to be studied that fall outside of that category, especially since so many studies are intended to complete a small part of a puzzle which itself is part of a larger puzzle, and so on. I don't think it's unreasonable for these studies to fall below the "lay person's" radar.
Maybe this is the problem. Where do we draw the line between research that the public must know about, and research that non-experts ignore? This line seems entirely arbitrary, and an overextension of lay-understandability requirements would provide yet another unnecessary leash for researchers.
Posted by: Brian | April 9, 2007 4:29 PM
Latest to join the swarm is Sean Carroll at Cosmic Variance, who concludes his post in the following way:
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 9, 2007 4:30 PM
Nice suggestion Brian, NIH grants require this already -- they are available on CRISP. We could do a better job on them, however. As for manuscripts, why not put the lay abstracts on PubMed Central where the free 6 month NIH funded papers are supposed to be. Append the lay abstract to the paper abstract. Let the authors do it when they submit their papers. I'd be willing to do it for all my manuscripts that are there (I'm in the process of approving them to be hosted on the site for older ones prior to the new policy).
Posted by: Theodore Price | April 9, 2007 4:37 PM
I wonder if your girlfriend would be more interested in an "abstract lay" than a "lay abstract".
Posted by: Scholar | April 9, 2007 4:39 PM