On Framing . . .
April 16th, 2007Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Recent discussion of Nisbet/Mooney’s presentation of “framing” in the blogosphere has been interesting, to say the least. I completely agree with the basic theoretical propositions being shared by Matt and Chris, though perhaps in framing framing in terms of a political battle over religion in modern society they may have misframed their argument — at least if selling scientists on the inescapable reality of framing dynamics in public discourse was their goal.
In 1997 I wrote the following on the subject:
The characterization of a particular set of circumstances as a “problem” requires attention to who is claiming that a problem exists, their perspectives, and their ability to act (cf. Lasswell 1971). From the standpoint of effective practical action, it is important that a problem be appropriately framed and presented to those with authority and ability to act. There are many examples of modern-day Cassandras who identify important problems that fail to either reach or be understood by decision makers. Hence, the existence of information related to a problem is not a sufficient condition for addressing the problem; attention to a healthy process that actively links that information with a decision maker’s needs is also necessary.
For the full context, have a look at this paper, especially beginning at page 258:
Pielke, Jr., R. A., 1997: Asking the Right Questions: Atmospheric Sciences Research and Societal Needs. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78:255-264. (PDF)
April 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Roger,
One thing did interest me in comparing the blog impact of our somewhat differently cast arguments at Science and at the WPost.
In our Science commentary we buried the discussion of evolution at the back end, and yet a blog clamor erupted that eclipsed the WPost article.
Indeed, with the Science piece, the almost exclusive focus of blogger critics was on our suggestions relative to evolution, rather than the more prominent focus in our commentary on climate change.
(Despite the article being published on the day of the IPCC release. Go figure.)
April 16th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Important to also keep in mind that the criticism is coming from a selection of scientists and non-scientists who write blogs. Representativeness is definitely in doubt.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:52 am
I agree that this is where Mooney and Nisbet have come up short. They have made their case in a manner that will not convince most scientists and put many on the defensive.
This is a handicap they will have to overcome if, at some point in the future, they follow up on their blistering critique with a set of actionable and constructive recommendations.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:05 am
The whole kerfuffle has been a demonstration of how those posing the arguments or presenting the evidence aren’t the only ones framing things. Various parts of an audience will frame what they receive, and rarely will there be a one-to-one correspondence between them and the presenters.
While Nisbet and Mooney’s argument is (at least in part) that people need to take this into account, the challenge becomes getting into the frame(s) of your audience. That may be even harder for researchers to do than accepting that they need to frame their work, or that they already frame their work.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Matt — watching evolution-vs-ID play out in the blogospace has been one of my biggest fascinations with science-related blogging since it started (really less than 3 years ago). Climate change is now well-represented, but evolution was **the** topic in science blogging for a long time and I could never figure out why, with so many topics to discuss, that particular one rose to such flame-war heights. It might be simply be explained by the Duncan Watts-type research: what rises is essentially random: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15wwlnidealab.t.html
PZ won’t like being compared to Madonna in Watts’ usage (see the article), of course, but seems as good an explanation as any for why evolution still commands more notice than anything.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:01 am
That a lot of negative reaction has come from the science bloggers who have been involved in the religion vs atheism and the creationism vs evolution “wars” seems sadly predictable. They are pissed off at the state of science in the public mind and at the same time these topics fuel their angry energy.
Still they are trumped by the climate change issue which for many of us is more immediate and has, to say the least, more dramatic consequences for a much larger group of people (everyone on the planet).
I’m sure they eventually they’ll come around both on what topics are important and how to address them. And not all scientists are biologists. And not all biologists are angry. We still have EO Wilson and Ken Miller.