Policy Framing

Policy framing is a concept used in public policy and social movement theory to explain the process by which actors seek to understand and act on complex situations. The policy framing process involves policy actors (a) confronting a situation where the understanding is problematic and uncertain, (b) creating an understanding or story that helps analyze and make sense of the situation, and (c) then acting (and persuading others to act) on it. Its basic premise refutes the notion that different individuals can observe the same social and natural phenomena and necessarily arrive at the same conclusions. Because the framing of the situation requires the assessment of the potential roles of other policy actors, framing will define the degree to which other potential actors are included and benefit from the policy process and policy decisions. Marginalized groups are more likely to contest a particular frame and promote a counterframe.

Policy framing is a midrange ideational concept that focuses on how humans conceptualize the world and how the elements of the world engage with each other and the policy actors themselves. It captures a notion of ideas that is more focused on the intersubjective understanding by a group of policy actors as compared with ideas, observations, and arguments held and posed by individuals. It is also focused on particular policy problems and situations when compared with the more encompassing focus on wider ideologies and philosophies.

Policy framing is a concept that places an emphasis on the dynamics of change and the constantly changing and contested notion of policy reality. In this, it contrasts strongly with policy concepts such as institutions, which tend to emphasize rules and norms that are slow to change over [Page 1924]time. Conflicting policy frames mobilize policy actors to contest the status quo. Policy frame analysis also has a fundamentally different set of assumptions from the rational choice perspectives that tend to assume that while circumstances may change, how actors calculate their interest will not. The framing approach would not dismiss the importance of interest calculation, as will be explained below, but it would emphasize how actors may “key” on different core elements at different times.

Framing has been used in a wide range of disciplines, including psychiatry and psychology. The concept of framing has attracted considerable interest in public policy analysis as well as social movement studies in sociology and politics because it incorporates constructivist understandings of how actors shape the meanings of their experiences. At the same time, it operates on a level that is not much distant from more positivist methodologies and approaches to political and social action. Thus, some scholars have used the frame approach in combination with other, more constructivist or positivist approaches, such as institutionalism and advocacy coalitions, as well as positivist methodologies. For example, there is a tradition in the study of political behavior of examining framing, focusing on topics such as quantitative studies of how the media shape public opinion.

In the public policy field, scholars have used the framing concept to study efforts by decision makers to shape understanding and courses of action in areas where knowledge is uncertain and/or where there are substantial differences and conflicts over interpretation and action. Thus, policy framing has featured significantly in studies of environmental policy, contested social policies such as refugee and women's rights, economic policy, knowledge-intensive areas, media and public opinion, health policy, racial policy, foreign policy, agricultural policy, poverty and education, and so forth.

...