What can tripartite semantic network analysis do for media framing research?

Yongjun Shin

doi:10.15581/003.33.35280

Yongjun Shin

(Login required)

PDF (

381)

View in DADUN

Published: Jan 7, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/003.33.35280

How to Cite

Shin, Y. (2020). What can tripartite semantic network analysis do for media framing research?. Communication & Society, 33(1), 121-137. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.33.35280

Authors

Yongjun Shin

(Login required)

Abstract

487

This study primarily aims to demonstrate how tripartite semantic network analysis can help us with media framing analysis. Predominant quantitative framing research has tended to focus on identifying salient frames and/or assessing their influences on public opinions. Also, semantic network analysis has been used to display relationships among frames, which complements conventional quantitative frame analysis for frequency and salience of frames. However, it needs to be advanced in the way that it can assess the dynamical relationships among actors, frames, and the actors’ stances on an issue. In this vein, it is encouraging to find that Robert Entman has demonstrated the dynamics in framing and the complicated relationships between frames and actors in different social realms through his cascading activation model. Tripartite semantic network analysis is expected to contribute to systematically depicting the complicated framing relationships in the form of network. This research attempts to showcase how tripartite semantic analysis can complement framing analysis through a case study on a controversial local housing policy in Madison, Wisconsin, USA. While the descriptive statistical analyses show the overall differences in framing across the newspapers and the changes in framings over time, the tripartite semantic network analyses display delicate and significant differences and changes in framing, which is hard to be captured in quantitative framing analysis. It might also be valuable for not only research but also more effective engagement in public discourses.

Keywords

Media framing, semantic network, tripartite network analysis, frame formation, textual framing analysis

References

Altheide, D. L. & Schneider, C. J. (2013). Qualitative media analysis (2 ed. Vol. 38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baden, C. (2010, June 2010). Contextualizing frames in political discourse: using semantic network analysis to investigate political parties’ framing strategies in the Dutch EU referendum campaign. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Conference, Singapore.

Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brewer, P. R. & Gross, K. (2010). Studying the effects of issue framing on public opinion about policy issues: Does what we see depend on how we look. In P. D’Angelo & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 159-186). New York: Routledge.

Cappella, J. N. & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carey, J. W. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman.

Cooper, S. D. (2010). The oppositional framing of bloggers. In P. D’Angelo & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 135-156). New York: Routledge.

D’Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 870-888. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02578.x

D’Angelo, P. & Kuypers, J. A. (Eds.). (2010). Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. New York: Routledge.

d’Haenens, L. & De Lange, M. (2001). Framing of asylum seekers in Dutch regional newspapers. Media, Culture & Society, 23(6), 847-860. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/016344301023006009

Engesser, S. & Brüggemann, M. (2016). Mapping the minds of the mediators: The cognitive frames of climate journalists from five countries. Public understanding of science, 25(7), 825-841. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0963662515583621

Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02328.x

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading activation: Contesting the White House’s frame after 9/11. Political Communication, 20(4), 415-432. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/10584600390244176

Entman, R. M. & Usher, N. (2018). Framing in a fractured democracy: Impacts of digital technology on ideology, power and cascading network activation. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 298-308. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx019

Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. New York: E. Arnold.

Fararo, T. J. & Doreian, P. (1984). Tripartite structural analysis: Generalizing the Breiger-Wilson formalism. Social Networks, 6, 141-175. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(84)90015-7

Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J. & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, L. C. & White, D. R. (1993). Using Galois lattices to represent network data. Sociological Methodology, 23, 127-146.

Friedland, L. A. & Mengbai, Z. (1996). International television coverage of Beijing Spring 1989: A comparative approach. Journalism and Mass Communication Monographs, 156, 1-60.

Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gamson, W. A. (2000). Framing social policy. Nonprofit Quarterly, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.newenglandnonprofit.org/advocacy/framing.htm

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Guzman, A. L. (2016). Evolution of news frames during the 2011 Egyptian revolution: Critical discourse analysis of Fox News’s and CNN’s framing of protesters, Mubarak, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 80-98. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1077699015606677

Johnston, H. (1995). A methodology for frame analysis: From discourse to cognitive schemata. Social movements and culture, 4, 2l7-246.

Just, S. N. (2009). No place like home?: The role of the media in the framing of Europe. Journal of Language and Politics, 8(2), 244-268. https://www.doi.org/10.1075/jlp.8.2.04jus

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.

Kang, N. (2000). Civic participation, community networks, and news media: A multi-method approach to civic participation. (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.

Kim, L. (2011). Media framing of stem cell research: A cross-national analysis of political representation of science between the UK and South Korea. Journal of Science Communication, 10(03), A02.

Knüpfer, C. B. & Entman, R. M. (2018). Framing conflicts in digital and transnational media environments. Media, War & Conflict, 11(4), 476-488. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1750635218796381

Koella, J. C. (2003, November 21-22). The impact of interest groups and new media framing on public opinion: The rise and fall of the Clinton health care plan. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research Chicago, IL.

Kuypers, J. A. (2010). Framing analysis from a rhetorical perspective. In P. D’Angelo & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 286-311). New York: Routledge.

Lune, H. & Berg, B. L. (2016). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London: Pearson.

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. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600206

McCaffrey, D. & Keys, J. (2000). Competitive framing processes in the abortion debate: Polarization-vilification, frame saving, and frame debunking. Sociological Quarterly, 41(1), 41-61.

Meyers, C. & Abrams, K. (2010). Feeding the debate: A qualitative framing analysis of organic food news media coverage. Journal of applied communications, 94(3), 22-36. https://www.doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1190

Miller, M. M. & Riechert, B. P. (1994, August 10-13). Identifying themes via concept mapping: A new method of content analysis. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

Mische, A. & Pattison, P. (2000). Composing a civic arena: Publics, projects, and social settings. Poetics, 27(2-3), 163-194. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(99)00024-8

Nisbet, M. C. (2010). Knowledge into action: Framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In P. D’Angelo & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 43-83). New York: Routledge.

Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55-75. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963

Perkins, S. C. (2005). Un-presidented: A qualitative framing analysis of the NAACP’s public relations response to the 2000 presidential election. Public Relations Review, 31(1), 63-71. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.11.006

Powell, T. E., Boomgaarden, H. G., De Swert, K. & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). A clearer picture: The contribution of visuals and text to framing effects. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 997-1017. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12184

Priss, U. (2006). Formal concept analysis in information science. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40, 521-543.

Reese, S. D. (2010). Finding frames in a web of culture: The case of the war on terror. In P. D’Angelo & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 17-42). New York: Routledge.

Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. New York: Routledge.

Riff, D., Lacy, S., Fico, F. & Watson, B. (2019). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. London: Routledge.

Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x

Semetko, H. A. & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93-109. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x

Shin, Y. (2009). Communication ecology and urban politics: The case of local low-income housing policy. (Ph.D. Dissertation), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

Shin, Y. (2016). Connecting Political Communication with Urban Politics: A Bourdieusian Framework. International Journal of communication, 10, 508-529.

Statham, P. & Mynott, E. (2002, March 22-27). The dilemma of anti-racist and pro-migrant mobilisation in Britain: Visibility or political power? Paper presented at the The first ECPR conference, Turin, Italy.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tankard, J. W. J. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 95-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Triandafyllidou, A. (2002). Religious diversity and multiculturalism in Southern Europe: The Italian Mosque debate. Sociological Research Online, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/1/triandafyllidou.html

Triandafyllidou, A. & Fotiou, A. (1998). Sustainability and modernity in the European Union: A frame theory approach to policy-making. Sociological Research Online, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/1/2.html

van Atteveldt, W. H. (2008). Semantic network analysis: Techniques for extracting, representing, and querying media content. Charleston, SC: BookSurge.

van de Mieroop, D. (2005). An integrated approach of quantitative and qualitative analysis in the study of identity in speeches. Discourse & Society, 16(1), 107-130.

van Gorp, B. (2010). Strategies to take subjectivity out of framing analysis. In P. D’Angelo & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 84-109). New York: Routledge.

van Mechelen, I., De Boeck, P. & Rosenberg, S. (1995). The conjunctive model of hierarchical classes. Psychometrika, 60(4), 505-521.

Wolff, K. E. (1993). A first course in formal concept analysis. SoftStat, 93, 429-438.

Metrics

Details

Issue

Vol 33 No 1 (2020)

Section

Articles

RIGHTS TRANSFER

By submitting the article for evaluation and subsequent publication in Communication & Society, the AUTHOR exclusively assigns the rights of public communication, reproduction, distribution and sale for commercial exploitation to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, for the maximum legal term in force -the entire life of the author and seventy years after his death or declaration of death-, in any country, and in any of the current and future edition modalities, both in print and electronic versions.

In the event that the article is not accepted for publication , this transfer of rights lapses with the communication of the refusal to the AUTHOR.

The AUTHOR affirms that the article is unpublished, that it has not been sent simultaneously to another publication medium and that the rights have not been transferred exclusively previously. He is responsible to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service for the authorship and originality of his work, as well as for all pecuniary charges that may arise for the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, in favor of third parties due to actions, claims or conflicts arising from the breach of obligations by the AUTHOR.

Article Sidebar

Main Article Content