Framing and Content Analysis
Journalism and media research communications have one aspect in common. The common element is in the delivery of information and knowledge to the public. But there is a dispute. The method in which research portrays this information can either be reliable and valid or the opposite, questionable. In current political, economic, health and societal issues, the media has a role to play in relaying information to the public. How the research frames this information is of interest to the current report. On one end, there is content and the other structure. Framing and content analysis has gained attention over the years, with researchers using these two different methods to assess media content (Matthes, 2009). There remains limited evaluation regarding content analysis and framing analysis. Specifically, the following report addresses the differences between content analysis and framing analysis from a comparative perspective. The evaluative research hopes to provide niche information in the journalism and research arena regarding the importance of the two analyses and the differences or similarities between the two concerning information relay.
Similarities and Differences between Content Analysis and Framing Analysis
The first approach of the report is to define the differences and similarities of methods used in content analysis and framing analysis. Before delving into the analysis, it is paramount to understand that media frames are pivotal as to how content and framing analysis methodologies are implemented (Matthes, 2009). According to Matthes (2009), frames have different levels of conceptualizations. The common denominator, nonetheless, is the issue-specific frame. An issue-specific frame encompasses issues that determine the various tenets in society from politics to climate change.
On the other hand, the generic frames that transcend thematic limitations identify across different issues (Matthes, 2009). One method, content analysis, has been lauded and criticized for its strengths and limitations on one platform (David et al., 2011). On the other, framing analysis is continually and gradually being accepted as a powerful alternative to content analysis.
The similarity between content analysis and framing analysis is the framing concept in media information presentation. Scheufele (1997) identifies that framing is repeatedly used as a means to distinctly identify various approaches. It includes script and schema regarding the concepts of agenda-setting or priming. Agenda setting refers to the characteristic of media coverage concerning audience interpretations (David et al., 2011). For content analysis, the focus is on the text, which is similar to framing analysis. For instance, content analysis can focus on a crisis with specific interest on the cause of the crisis, actors of the crisis and media frame of the crisis event (An & Gower, 2009). Similarly, framing analysis involves an extension of framing analysis. In this regard, it means that the characteristic of media coverage is based on audience interpretations (Scheufele, 1999).
The differences, however, between the framing analysis and content analysis are extensive compared to the singularity in similarity. Primarily, the difference between the two methodologies is the incorporation of a theoretical perspective. Matthes (2009) and Scheufele (1999) concur that framing analysis has a theoretical premise. Matthes (2009) describes that framing utilizes conceptual framing as a means to describe information. There are two approaches to this. They include frames that are dependent versus independent as well as media versus audience (Scheufele, 1999). To understand the theoretical premise of framing analysis clearly, it is crucial to understand it from a historical perspective. It includes the framing of the construction of social reality. Social realities from a framing perspective are based on the emphasis on specific outlooks, attitudes and effects. For instance, the construction of social reality is based on the images of reality. The idea is to reiterate on the public opinion that already exists. Journalists are required from a research angle to emphasize the strong media effects that resonate with societal ideologies such as attitudes and personal influence. In summary, regarding the theoretical ideology, framing analysis, the frames are connected to the antecedents and the consequences.
On the other hand, the methodological approach from concept analysis originates from the non-theoretical approach. The non-theoretical approach brings out the unreliability and lack of validity regarding content analysis (Van Gorp & Vercruysse, 2012). According to the hermeneutic approach in content analysis, the idea of media frames is based on the linking up of the multiple frames on a broader cultural perspective (Scheufele, 1999). The other approach in content analysis is the incorporation, presentation and emphasis on the structure of words and texts used. In other words, the lack of possessing a theoretical framework presents content analysis as a mediocre and unstructured media strategy in the communication of information.
With this reality in mind, the continuous difference between content analysis and framing analysis is on the emphasis or lack of emphasis on textual representation in qualitative research. Concerning content analysis, there are three factors to consider. They include frames determined through inductive and reductive analysis, coding or computer-assisted and data-reduction techniques. The approaches may seem similar, but they all are individual on their own. The hermeneutic approach focuses on identifying interpretative media tests based on broader cultural elements (Matthes & Kohring, 2008). The linguistic approach, on the other hand, focuses on the selection, placement and structure of the texts used in media research (Matthes & Kohring, 2008). They are considered the building blocks of frames (Matthes & Kohring, 2008). There is a holistic approach that encompasses the qualitative analysis of news texts from the holistic variables. Finally, there is the aspect of a computer-assisted approach, which encompasses frame mapping. Mapping is described as the method of discovering a particular word that needs to occur together with a line of texts. Accordingly, content analysis emphasizes on text without a structural or theoretical approach to it.
As for framing analysis, the methods include a handful of frames that includes human interest, conflict, morality, economic and attribution of responsibility frame. In each of the frames, there is the issue of presentation of the problems, reflection on the actors involved, social concept on morality and how does it affect the socio-economic framework (David et al., 2011). The reception on how the media frames in framing analysis capture each tent are pivotal to the reliability of the framing analysis. It all stems from the theoretical perspectives compared to the non-theoretical induction in content analysis.
Strengths and Limitations of Framing and Content Analysis
Strengths and Limitations of Framing Analysis
The strengths of framing analysis are the small set of data used in defining the text-based information concerning the societal discourse. The frames, as such, offer in-depth analysis using detailed quotations without quantification. For this, the concurrent strength of framing analysis is the use of the deductive and inductive perspective on the analysis of information. In political factors, for instance, frames have to be defined, especially with framing analysis. The media actively uses the information to allow the public to discuss the specific issues. It is this organization and modality in the presentation of information that presents limitations of the framing analysis. One limitation is that the framing analysis uses an already pre-existing theoretical framework. They are divided into human interest, morality, responsibility and economic consequences. The generic frameworks limit professional judgments, especially about the audience and organization, and modality exchanges. The audience relies on the version of reality that is built from personal experiences, including interaction peers and selected information the media.
Strengths and Limitations of Content Analysis
One of the common strengths that content analysis shares with framing analysis is the deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive studies utilize the frames within research to code the information provided. It can include the generic frames utilized in framing analysis, including conflict, human interest, economic consequences, morality and responsibility (David et al., 2011). The downside, nevertheless, to deductive reasoning is that the media frame is already known. There is nothing original about the content from a media perspective.
Additionally, there is the issue of validity and reliability of the methodologies on content analysis (An & Gower, 2009). Content in this analysis is based on cultural meanings, which can be difficult to code from a media frame standpoint. It is particularly difficult to identify how media frames since there is no common process of identifying the frames. One strength that content analysis possesses is the systematic analysis of the text, but the limitation is that there lacks a structural organization of how to handle large text samples (Cissel, 2012). Inordinately, it makes the content analysis difficult to utilize in media frame analyses.
Reliability Testing in Content Analysis
Reliability testing has been significant in the content analysis since it allows individuals or researchers to verify whether the coded data produced is valid. It encompasses the use of multiple codes to identify any discrepancies (Milne & Adler, 1999). Reliability testing involves the content analyst processing several decisions from each coder and expounds on the outcome decision. The coefficient agreement is done using a simple ratio of coding decisions on the total number of decisions made (Milne & Adler, 1999). Framing analysis should reliability testing due to the competence in analysis on an individual level. It entails knowledge about the correctness of data, including correlations, predictability and correlations (Krippendorff, 2004). Also, it promotes coefficient to use in assessing the reliability of data from a quantitative perspective instead of qualitative data alone. Further, values presented on data can be placed under conditions based on the willingness to rely on imperfect data.
Framing Analysis of Qualitative Approach
The use of empirical data in framing analysis is pivotal in promoting the validity of the presented (Pan & Kosicki, 1993). The conventions in framing analysis do not encompass quantitative data; however, according to Pan and Kosicki (1993), the importance of using empirical data links to the authority of the sources used. The analysis is used to frame the data used, including the validity of the distribution of variables. For instance, the study by Sznitman & Lewis (2015) indicates that through analysis of content from an analysis point of view, it comprehensively analyzes the framing numbers within the news content regarding cannabis in Israeli. Frame analysis includes the inductive process of analyzing each frame using a systematic approach through a parallel phase (Van Gorp & Vercruysse, 2012).
Reflexivity
Reflexivity is the process of continual reflection done in the research process. Reflection is necessary during the framing as it allows the need to focus on the effects sizes (Fagley, 1993). Reflection highlights the different framing effects which are crucial in research (Vraneski & Richter, 2002). The different framing effects provide different choices in which the researchers can assess the outcomes and compare them to the losses they can get during the choice process.
References
An S.-K., & Gower, K. K. (2009). How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 107–112.
Cissel, M. (2012). Media Framing: A comparative content analysis on mainstream and alternative news coverage of Occupy Wall Street. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 3(1), 67–77.
David, C. C., Atun, J. M., Fille, E., & Monterola, C. (2011). Finding frames: Comparing two methods of frame analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(4), 329–351.
Fagley, N. S. (1993). A note concerning reflection effects versus framing effects.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433.
Matthes, J. (2009). What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the world’s leading communication journals, 1990-2005. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 349–367.
Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 258–279.
Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55–75.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122.
Sznitman, S. R., & Lewis, N. (2015). Is cannabis an illicit drug or a medicine? A quantitative framing analysis of Israeli newspaper coverage. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(5), 446–452.
Van Gorp, B., & Vercruysse, T. (2012). Frames and counter-frames giving meaning to dementia: A framing analysis of media content. Social Science & Medicine, 74(8), 1274–1281.
Vraneski, A., & Richter, R. (2002). Frames, Framing, and Reframing In, and Through The Mass Media: Reflection of Four Protracted Environmental Disputes in the Israeli Press.