Defining Fact Frames
Facts do not speak for themselves. The same information from different sources, or received by different people, can lead to very different conclusions.
|
People approach conflicts in very different ways depending on their perceptions of relevant technical and social facts. For example, people who believe that air pollution is killing them can be expected to act differently from people who think that it is merely an unpleasant inconvenience. This section, which links closely with the fact-finding section, will examine the psychological role of facts and factual interpretation.
Why We Use Frames
A frame is an interpretive tool that all people use when making sense of the world around them. Because the task of processing information about our social world is difficult, complex, and often cumbersome, especially when addressing policy conflicts that are characterized by technical or scientific information, we must use tools that help us make better sense of relevant facts and information.
All individuals use frames to aid in deciding where and how they fit into a conflict and what, if anything, they can do as a response. Using the metaphor of a picture frame, the concept of "frame" acts as a device to draw borders around what is and is not important. Just as a picture frame defines what is and what is not included in a picture, fact frames define what is and what is not important to consider when evaluating information, data, or facts about a particular dispute or policy alternative.
For example, in a dispute about the construction of a new water treatment plant, a wide variety of factual issues come into play. How much additional water will be needed over the coming years? Where will that water come from? How much will it cost? What alternative sources of water are available if the additional treatment facility is not built? If it has to be built is this the best place to put it? What are the environmental impacts of the plant? The recreational impacts? And so on. Some people will view the cost of the new plant as very important; others will not. Some will be very concerned about the environmental impacts, while others will not. These determinations about which facts are important and which are not are decided by one's "fact frames."
Additional insights into fact frames are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.
|
The Importance of Fact Frames
Because nearly every important social conflict contains expert evaluation and opinion, the framing of these facts deserves closer analysis. For a number of reasons, facts do not speak for themselves. Without proper presentation and interpretation, facts can leave one uncertain as to the meaning and significance of the information. In many cases, preconceived notions of what is correct and incorrect, factual or biased, objective or subjective can cloud accurate processing of relevant information. In addition, the identity of the person who is presenting the information can drastically influence how the information is perceived, regardless of content.
Framing for Information Producers and Users
Fact frames can be divided into the perspective of the information producers (scientists, data analysts, technicians, engineers, professors, environmental risk assessment experts, etc.) and the information users (lay public, politicians, conflict resolution practitioners, educators, activists, policy makers, etc.). Because of their different societal and institutional roles, each party will frame factual information in different ways.
Framing Problems
For information producers: Because of their relationship to the data-collection process itself, information producers tend to frame the facts in specific ways. For example, since many experts are very involved and entrenched in the information production process, they often assume that all of the parties are aware of the practices and procedures associated with that process. In these cases, information producers may adopt an "expert only" frame that makes it difficult to transmit the larger meaning or significance to a broader audience. Since they know the minute details of the information production, they assume everyone else knows (or should know) as well. Therefore, in their communication to others, they frame facts in ways that assume everyone knows what they know.
An additional problem is associated with trust and credibility. If experts frame the information in ways that assume everyone is knowledgeable about their work, they may not reveal essential information that would build the trust of the public. Presenting the research process in terms that are simple and transparent allows the public to more carefully assess the information's validity and truthfulness.
Finally, experts may frame their research in ways that go against the norms of non-biased, independent research. In these cases, they frame the research in terms of the goals and desired outcomes of their sponsoring advocacy group or perhaps their own personal values and biases. These "value judgment" frames ultimately work to confirm preconceived notions of the desired policy alternative.
For information users: Those using and processing information from experts face a related, but somewhat different set of framing issues. In many instances, users of information come into a fact-finding or risk assessment process with a frame that implies they already know all of the relevant facts. In these cases, such a "known facts" frame prevents the user from seeing the merit or validity of competing perspectives. If someone already has a clear picture of what valid and reliable facts "should" look like, they will be likely to find fault with information that does not correspond to this preconceived image. In this way, the previous information constitutes a frame through which additional information is viewed and evaluated.
People adopting a "known facts" frame also have a picture of what credible and trustworthy information sources should be. In many environmental disputes, stakeholders have come to rely upon particular information providers and respond to alternative sources with skepticism and mistrust. For example, information from well-known environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club or Greenpeace may be believed, while facts from other, less well-known sources may not be.
This phenomenon illustrates another type of framing which hinges on individuals' relative trust of science. Those adopting a trustful frame of scientific fact-finding tend to suspend judgment until the relevant facts have been collected and presented by independent or unbiased experts. They wait until scientific studies have been conducted, peer reviewed, and presented to the public before they decide how and why they will choose a particular course of action.
Other, more skeptical parties enter disputes with more rigid views of science and scientific facts. Regardless of the "facts" presented by assumed credible and independent experts, those who are skeptical of science will only believe those facts that support their foregone conclusions. In this case, they already have their minds made up. These skeptics are distrustful of scientists and feel that their underlying values and interests in the dispute will necessarily skew their findings. In sum, individuals or groups evaluating scientific or technical information who already have in their minds a picture of not only what the facts should look like, but also how the fact-finders should behave, end up evaluating new and potentially contradictory evidence with a skeptical mind.
Use the following to cite this article:
Gardner, Robert. "Fact Frames." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/fact_frames/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
Goodstein, David. Conduct and Misconduct in Science.
Available at: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/onepage/conduct.html.
An essay on fraudulent practices in science and recent legislation to deal with this problem.
Ergenzinger, Edward R. "Conversations With Phineas Gage: A Neuroscientific Approach to Negotiation Strategies." , December 2002
Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/Ergenzinger.cfm.
This article examines how framing affects peoples' preferences.
Gray, Barbara, Ralph Hanke and Linda L. Putnam. Differential Framing of Environmental Disputes by Stakeholder Groups.
Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=320364.
Abstract: This paper contributes to a developing literature on the role of framing in organizational settings and in protracted environmental disputes in particular. The paper identifies four frame types (risk, conflict management, power, and views of nature frames) that can be used to understand how disputants make sense of environmental conflicts and offers predictions about differential use of these four frames by environmental disputants. Our results substantiate some differences in the frames utilized by different stakeholder groups - revealing predicable antagonisms as well as the presence of strange bedfellows. We link frame usage to the intractability of conflict and offer some recommendations for handling these frame-based disputes. Finally, our results suggest that greater insight into environmental conflicts may be derived from understanding the patterns of frames held by disputants rather than concentrating solely on interest-based stakeholder groupings.
Facing History and Ourselves.
Available at: http://www.facinghistory.org.
This organization is based around helping people to understand the present and future by educating them about the past. It seeks to develop programs that would allow students to think critically about the past by emphasizing morality in history. The website has links to new articles discussing current world events and also provides resources for understanding these events. There are also resources like academic articles, films, books, and teaching tools provided at this site.
Kolb, Deborah M. Negotiations Through a Gender Lens.
Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=314462.
Abstract: Traditional views of gender in negotiation focus on differences between men and women. Even though the focus is presumably on men and women, it is really only women who are implicated - they are either similar to men or difference from them. Using a different perspective, it is possible to use gender as a lever into negotiation processes. Specifically, a gender lens highlights: the challenges of social position; the ways gender and legitimacy are negotiated in bargaining interactions and the possibilities for transformative outcomes.
Strategies for Dealing with Environmental Risk Conflicts.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This paper examines intractable conflicts by focusing on the problem of technical risk and uncertainty, including the fact that uncertainty is often unavoidable and how parties react to uncertainty and possible risks.
"The Frame: An Introduction." , 1900
Available at: http://www.workingpsychology.com/frintro.html.
A somewhat detailed discussion of framing.
Treating Framing Problems.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This page lists and defines several framing strategies that can be used to determine what a conflict is about and how it is being addressed.
Offline (Print) Sources
Snare, Charles E. "Defining Others and Situations: Peace, Conflict, and Cooperation." Peace and Conflict Studies 1:1, December 1994.
This article examines framing. The author explains, "individuals actively create reality and give it meaning. One's subjective representations of reality provide a framework to interpret and categorize situations and people. One's mental representations become a guide in one's attempt to grapple with the problems and challenges that confront us."
Schon, Donald A. and Martin Rein. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
This work focuses on the problem of intractable policy controversies. The work concentrates on the importance of frames and the notion that parties to policy controversies see issues, policies, and policy situations in different and conflicting ways that correspond to certain systems of belief and consequent modes of action. The authors outline a theoretical framework for thinking about these issues and employ multiple case studies to illustrate their innovative approach to solving policy disputes. The approach emphasizes the practice of reframing issues as a way toward resolution. Click here for more info.
Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd Edition . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., April 1992.
This is an updated version of Roger Fisher's and William Ury's classic 1981 text, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. In this bestseller, Fisher, Ury, and Patton describe what they call "principled negotiation", which is basically interest-based bargaining with a few extra twists. Key ideas include: 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) negotiate interests, not positions; 3) look for mutually beneficial options; and 4) use objective criteria. This work is considered essential foundational reading for anyone interested in negotiation. Click here for more info.
Burgess, Guy M., Sanda Kaufman and Robert Gardner. "Just the Facts, Please: Framing and Technical Information." In Environmental Practice. Edited by Gray, Barbara, Roy J. Lewicki and Michael Elliott, eds. Oxford, OH: Oxford University Press, September 2003.
In this article, the authors introduce the concept of framing theory in the context of environmental disputes. They examine the various ways that individuals and stakeholders in environmental policy disputes interpret, relate to, and understand technical and scientific facts. They offer solutions to reframe common relationships to highly technical information in ways that allow greater communication between parties to environmental conflicts.
Wildavsky, A. and K. Dake. "Theories of Risk Perception: Who Fears What and Why?." 119:4, 1990.
Vaughn, E. and M Seifert. "Variability in the Framing of Risk Issues." Journal of Social Issues 48:4, 1992.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
Hill, Richard. "Constituting Arbitral Tribunals in Hi-Tech Cases." , May 1995
Available at: http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v3n1/hill.html.
This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of several methods commonly used to nominate arbitrators for a dispute involving advanced technologies (for example, computer hardware or software) and suggests some alternatives.
Framing Problems.
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/!overlay_problems.htm.
This page lists and defines potential problems with defining what the conflict is about and how it is being addressed.
Carroll, Robert Todd . Piltdown Hoax.
Available at: http://skepdic.com/piltdown.html.
A discussion of the famous fraud of the "Piltdown Man" and its significance to science.
Hansen, James. The Global Warming Debate.
Available at: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/.
This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of several methods commonly used to nominate arbitrators for a dispute involving advanced technologies (for example, computer hardware or software) and suggests some alternatives.
Fiala, Christian. We Have Lived with HIV/AIDS for Twenty Years: A Call for an Open Discussion of Contradictory Facts.
Available at: http://perso.orange.fr/sidasante/critique/fiala.htm.
An editorial essay contradicting the AIDS statistics in Africa on the grounds of poor data collection, faulty testing, and exaggeration.
Offline (Print) Sources
Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Frames and Cases. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003.
This edited volume consists of a series of case studies that examine processes used to help resolve environmental conflicts. The work opens with an introductory chapter on how environmental conflicts are framed as well as a discussion of the meaning of the term intractability. The case studies cover natural resource cases, water cases, toxics cases, and growth management cases. The concept and importance of framing are emphasized throughout all of the pieces in the work.
Fong, Larry S. "New Paradigms in Mediation: Thinking About Our Thinking." Mediation Quarterly 10:2, 1992.
This article gives some suggestions on how mediators can better deal with clients who are very protracted.
Gusfield, Joseph. The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Discusses the interaction between official and public information on the subject of drinking and driving.
Return to Top
Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources
Liberation. Directed and/or Produced by: Bloomstein, Rex. First Run Icarus Films. 1995.
This film presents personal accounts from soldiers who liberated the Nazi concentration camps at the end of World War II, and their accounts of the world's continual denial of this horrific event.
Race - The Power of an Illusion . Directed and/or Produced by: Adelman, Larry. California Newsreel. 2003.
This four part series destroys the myth of race. It shows that race has no biological basis, rather it only has societal consequences. It has been used to justify the abuse of one human population by another and to denote social and economic inequalities as being natural rather than humanly created. Click here for more info.
Return to Top
|
