What does it mean to frame an issue? Why should you think about how an issue is framed? When should you consider framing or reframing an issue? How do you frame an issue? How do you reframe an issue? What does it mean to frame an issue? Framing is the process of deciding how to describe and organize information about an issue so people can understand what is happening, why it matters, what may be contributing to it, and what responses should be considered. Every explanation emphasizes some information and gives less attention to other information. For that reason, framing can strongly influence how people understand: What the issue is Who is affected What factors contribute to the issue What responsibilities different people or institutions have What solutions appear possible Framing should help people understand an issue rather than manipulate them into accepting a predetermined conclusion. A strong frame is accurate, supported by evidence, clear about uncertainty, and appropriate to the audience without changing the underlying facts from one audience to another. Framing is not the same as spin Advocacy organizations naturally want people to understand why an issue matters. However, framing should not involve: Hiding important evidence Exaggerating the severity of a problem Assigning blame without evidence Using stigmatizing labels Presenting uncertainty as certainty Describing the same facts inconsistently simply to appeal to different audiences Persuasive communication and accurate communication do not have to conflict. Why should you think about how an issue is framed? The way an issue is described affects which questions people ask and which solutions they consider. For example, a transportation problem framed only as individual inconvenience may lead people to think primarily about personal transportation choices. The same situation examined as a community-access issue may also raise questions about: Public transportation routes Disability access Job locations Housing patterns Service locations Transportation costs Neither frame should be selected simply because it produces the political response advocates prefer. The better frame is one that accurately represents the dimensions of the issue relevant to the decision being made. Frames can reveal or hide important context A narrow frame may focus attention on one behavior, institution, or event. A broader frame may show how several conditions interact. Both can be useful. Problems arise when a frame excludes information necessary for understanding the issue fairly. Frames can affect responsibility Framing often communicates an idea about responsibility. Be careful not to turn complex community conditions into simple stories about who is to blame. Responsibility may be distributed across: Individual decisions Organizational practices Public policy Economic conditions Historical patterns Availability of services or resources Several interacting factors When should you consider framing or reframing an issue? Consider framing whenever you are explaining an issue to others. Revisit the frame when: New evidence changes your understanding Community members identify an important perspective that was missing The existing frame stigmatizes or stereotypes people The frame focuses on symptoms while ignoring important contributing conditions People consistently misunderstand what you mean An opposing or competing frame leaves out important evidence Circumstances or policies change Do not reframe simply because the evidence is inconvenient for your advocacy position. If new information changes what the issue actually appears to be, change the frame accordingly. How do you frame an issue? Begin with several basic questions: What is the issue? Who is affected? Who has relevant responsibilities or decision-making authority? What evidence describes the issue? What factors contribute to it? What possible responses exist? What important uncertainty remains? What is the issue? Describe the issue specifically enough that people understand what is being discussed. Avoid labels that already assume: Who caused the problem Which solution is correct Which people are responsible What motives people have For example, instead of beginning with: Parents are failing to get children to school. you might begin with: Student attendance has declined, and the community wants to understand the factors contributing to missed school days. The second frame leaves room to examine transportation, health, housing instability, school climate, caregiving responsibilities, family circumstances, and other possible factors. Broad frames and focused frames Issues can often be described at different levels. Broad framing A broad frame identifies the larger community problem and allows several contributing factors or solutions to be considered. For example: Young people in the community need reliable access to accurate sexual-health information and appropriate health services. This frame allows discussion of: Health education Access to clinical services Communication with parents and caregivers Contraceptive access STI prevention Healthy relationships Other relevant supports Focused framing A focused frame emphasizes one part of a broader issue when that part is the subject of the decision being made. For example: The community is examining whether adolescents have adequate access to confidential sexual-health services. This narrower frame may be appropriate when the specific policy question concerns health-service access. Focused framing should not imply that the selected factor is the only cause or solution unless evidence supports that conclusion. Choose the level of framing carefully A broad frame may be useful when: Several causes or solutions need to be considered Participants disagree about strategy but share a broader goal The problem involves several systems A focused frame may be useful when: A particular policy decision is being considered One clearly documented factor requires attention A specific organization has authority over only one part of the issue Do not assume that one approach is always best for a “diverse” audience and another for a particular type of group. Choose the frame according to the issue and purpose. Who is affected and involved? Identify the people and organizations connected with the issue. These may include: People directly affected Families and caregivers Community organizations Service providers Schools Businesses Public agencies Elected officials Other institutions with relevant responsibility or authority Avoid describing people primarily as “targets” whose behavior advocates need to change. People directly affected may be participants, leaders, decision-makers, researchers, organizers, or partners in developing solutions. Know your audience without changing the facts Different audiences may need different levels of explanation. For example: Community members may want clear examples of how the issue affects daily life. Policymakers may need information about costs, implementation, legal authority, and population effects. Technical professionals may need detailed methods and data. Journalists may need concise findings, sources, and context. Tailoring the level, format, or examples is appropriate. Changing or withholding material facts in order to gain support is not. What contributes to the problem? Use evidence to identify contributing factors. Avoid assuming that one factor is the cause simply because it fits the advocacy message. Contributing factors may operate at several levels: Individual Family or household Organizational Neighborhood Economic Policy Social or cultural Historical Complex community problems often involve several interacting conditions rather than one simple cause. What contributes to the solution? Once contributing factors are understood, consider possible responses. Depending on the issue, strategies may include: Education and skill development Improving access to services or resources Reducing unnecessary barriers Changing organizational practice Providing appropriate incentives or supports Changing public policy Improving enforcement of existing policy Expanding community resources Avoid presenting a solution as inevitable merely because it fits the frame you selected. Compare alternatives according to evidence, feasibility, community priorities, equity, cost, and possible unintended consequences. Framing and values Many public issues involve legitimate differences in values as well as disagreements about evidence. Be clear about which parts of an argument are: Factual claims Interpretations Predictions Ethical or value judgments Policy preferences Do not present a value judgment as though it were a scientific finding. Likewise, do not dismiss evidence simply because it complicates a preferred moral or political position. Avoid stigmatizing frames Frames can unintentionally suggest that a population itself is the problem. Review language carefully when describing: Poverty Homelessness Disability Substance use Immigration Race or ethnicity Adolescence Mental health Criminal-justice involvement Describe the condition, barrier, policy, or behavior as specifically as possible rather than turning an entire group into a label. How should you reframe an issue? Reframing means changing the way an issue is described because another frame provides a more accurate, complete, useful, or less stigmatizing understanding. Reframing may be appropriate when: New evidence changes what is known An existing frame leaves out important context A frame incorrectly assigns responsibility A frame stigmatizes people A debate has become artificially limited to only two choices A competing frame contains misleading or incomplete claims Respond to competing frames with evidence When another organization frames an issue differently: Identify what its frame emphasizes Identify what it leaves out Check whether its factual claims are supported Explain the relevant evidence Present a more complete alternative when appropriate Do not assume that every competing frame is simply “opposition” that must be defeated. Another frame may reveal a legitimate concern that your original framing missed. Example: Reframing tobacco use Tobacco use can be framed as an issue involving individual choice. A broader public-health frame may also consider: Nicotine dependence Marketing practices Exposure to secondhand smoke Product regulation Access to cessation support Population-level health effects The purpose of reframing is not to replace one slogan with another. It is to make relevant evidence and context visible. Test your frame Before using a frame widely, ask: Is it accurate? Is it supported by current evidence? What important information does it leave out? Does it stigmatize anyone? Does it imply causation that has not been established? Does it oversimplify responsibility? Would people directly affected recognize their experience in it? Does it leave room to consider evidence that challenges our preferred solution? Ask people directly affected and others with relevant knowledge to review the frame when practical. In Summary Framing is the process of organizing and presenting information so people can understand what an issue is, who is affected, what contributes to it, and what responses may be possible. Framing matters because the way an issue is described influences what people notice, what questions they ask, how they understand responsibility, and which solutions they consider. Advocacy organizations should frame issues clearly and persuasively without sacrificing accuracy. Begin by defining the issue, identifying people affected and institutions with relevant responsibilities, examining contributing factors, and considering possible solutions. Use broad framing when several dimensions of an issue need to be considered and focused framing when a particular decision or factor is the subject of attention. Know your audience, but tailor the level and format of communication rather than changing the underlying facts. Avoid reducing complex problems to one cause or assigning responsibility without evidence. Distinguish factual claims, interpretations, values, predictions, and policy preferences. Review frames for stigmatizing language and involve people directly affected in determining whether the description reflects their experiences. Reframe when evidence, community input, or changing conditions show that a different description is more accurate or complete. When competing frames exist, evaluate them rather than simply trying to defeat them. Finally, remember that framing should clarify an issue, not manipulate the audience. The strongest frame is one that helps people understand the evidence, recognize the relevant context, and evaluate possible solutions more thoughtfully. Resources Online Resources The Civic Language Perceptions Project is a resource from the Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement. It explores how people perceive the language used in civic engagement and democracy work, and techniques for engaging more meaningful dialogue. Framing an Advocacy Message is a guide to reframing advocacy messages distributed by UN Women: Advocacy Toolkit for Women in Politics. Framing a Persuasive Advocacy Message is a science-based guide from Berkeley Law with information on how to convey the most persuasive possible advocacy message. FSTV Keynote: Lori Dorfman (video) Message delivery: The Interview, from the Berkeley Media Studies Group, provides three components of a message: What’s wrong? Why does it matter? What is the solution? Narrative Change, Framing, and Communications is a guide to shifting narratives and using effective framing to advance health equity and social justice. Reframing Advocacy is a resource specific to reframing an advocacy message as it pertains to gender-based violence. Reframing Youth Issues is a guide to reframing advocacy issues in order to appeal to public consideration and support. Reframing the Issue from Advocacy International provides an example of how the issue of maternal mortality in Africa has been reframed from failure and despair to success and survival. Strategic CaseMaking in a World That Won’t Stand Still emphasizes effective social change requires not just raising voices but making stronger, more adaptive arguments that resonate with shifting public sentiment. It calls for strategic "casemaking," blending bold leadership, coalition-building, and tailored messaging to create a compelling vision for a just and thriving future. These Are The Words That Do (And Do Not) Persuade Americans, Study Shows is an article by Forbes Magazine. It shares a study emphasizing the importance of language in shaping public opinion. More than a Message is an article by Dorfman that discusses framing public health advocacy to change corporate practices. Dorfman discusses frames extensively and why they matter. Worksheet: Message development, from the Berkeley Media Studies Group, helps you develop a message that communicates to your target your frame and solutions. Print Resources Altman, D., Balcazar, F., Fawcett, S., Seekins, T., & Young, J. (1994). Public health advocacy: Creating community change to improve health. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center for Research in Disease Prevention. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1990). Action science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ryan, C. (1991). Prime time activism. Boston, MA: Southland Press. Wallack, L., Dorfman, D., Jernigan, D., et al. (1993). Media advocacy and public health. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
