This article examines the boundary work of frames and the methodological significance of understanding this work when conducting rhetorical framing analysis. While the boundary properties of frames have been theorized by scholars, there remains a lack of clear engagement with how to effectively address these discursive boundaries methodically. I argue that agenda-dismissal, which makes use of both prolepses and blind spots, ought to be addressed in addition to agenda-setting and agenda-extension when conducting rhetorical framing analysis. A case study is provided in which the rhetorical framing of vegan parenting in online news media is analyzed and critiqued for confining the issue within a dominant health-based frame. Strategies for dismantling discursive boundaries and reframing public issues are also considered within the context of the case study.
AugerG. A. (2014).
Rhetorical framing: Examining the message structure of nonprofit organizations on Twitter.International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
19(4), 239–249.
3.
BagdikianB. H. (2004). The new media monopoly.
Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
4.
BiglB. (2017).
Fracking in the German press: Securing energy supply on the eve of the ‘Energiewende’—A quantitative framing-based analysis.Environmental Communication,
11(2), 231–247.
5.
BlidookK. (2009).
Choice and content: Media ownership and democratic ideals in Canada. Canadian Political Science Review,
3(2), 52–69.
6.
BurkeK. (1966). Language as symbolic action.
Berkeley:
University of California Press.
7.
BurkeK. (1969). A rhetoric of motives.
Berkeley:
University of California Press.
8.
CeccarelliL. (2011).
Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate.Rhetoric & Public Affairs,
14(2), 195–228.
9.
CohenJ.RichardsonJ. (2002).
Pit bull panic.The Journal of Popular Culture,
36(2), 285–317.
10.
ComptonJ.JacksonB.Dimmock, J. A. (2016).
Persuading others to avoid persuasion: Inoculation theory and resistant health attitudes, Frontiers in Psychology,
7(122), 1–9.
DowningJ. D. H. (2011). Media ownership, concentration, and control: The evolution of debate. In WaskoJ.MurdockG.SousaH. (Eds.), The handbook of political economy of communications (pp. 140–168).
Oxford, England:
Blackwell Publishing.
13.
EntmanR. M. (1993).
Framing: Toward a clarification of a fractured paradigm.Journal of Communication,
43(4), 51–58.
14.
GamsonW. A.ModiglianiA. (1987).
Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.American Journal of Sociology,
95(1), 1–37.
15.
GarciaM. M.GreenwoodK. (2015).
Visual CSR: A visual framing analysis of US multinational companies.Journal of Marketing Communications,
21(3), 167–184.
16.
GrubeD. (2010).
The rhetorical framing of policy intervention.Australian Journal of Political Science,
45(4), 559–578.
IbarraP. R.KitsuseJ. I. (1993). Vernacular constituents of moral discourse: An interactionist proposal for the study of social problems. In HolsteinJ. A.MillerG. (Eds.), Reconsidering social constructionism: Debates in social problems theory (pp. 25–58).
Hawthorne, NY:
Aldine de Gruyter.
23.
IyengarS.KinderD. R. (2010). News that matters: Television and American opinion (Updated ed.).
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
24.
JohnstonA. (2003).
Press bias and politics: How the media frame controversial issues. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
80(3), 758–760.
25.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979).
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica,
47(2), 263–291.
26.
KaplanS. (2008).
Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty.Organization Science,
19(5), 729–752.
27.
KuypersJ. A. (2002). Press bias and politics: How the media frame controversial issues.
Westport, CT:
Praeger.
28.
KuypersJ. A. (2005). Framing analysis. In KuypersJ. A. (Ed.) The art of rhetorical criticism (pp. 186–211).
Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
29.
KuypersJ. A. (2010). Framing analysis from a rhetorical perspective. In D’AngeloP.KuypersJ. A. (Eds.), Doing new framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 286–311).
New York, NY:
Routledge.
30.
KuypersJ. A.CooperS. D. (2005).
A comparative framing analysis of embedded and behind-the-lines reporting on the 2003 Iraq war.Quarterly Research Reports in Communications,
6(1), 1–10.
31.
LakoffG. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives.
White River Junction, VT:
Chelsea Green Publishing.
32.
LakoffG. (2010).
Why it matters how we frame the environment.Environmental Communication,
4(1), 70–81.
33.
McChesneyR. W. (2008). The political economy of media: Enduring issues, emerging dilemmas.
New York, NY:
Monthly Review Press.
34.
MetzeT. (2017).
Fracking the debate: Frame shifts and boundary work in Dutch decision making on shale gas.Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,
19(1), 35–52.
35.
MirrleesT. (2016). Hearts and mines: The U.S. Empire’s culture industry.
Vancouver:
University of British Columbia Press.
36.
NelsonT. E.ClawsonR. A.OxleyZ. M. (1997).
Media framing of civil liberties conflict and its effects on tolerance.The American Political Science Review,
91(3), 567–583.
37.
NisbetM. C. (2010). Knowledge into action: Framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In D’AngeloP.J. A. Kuypers (Eds.) Doing new framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 43–83).
New York, NY:
Routledge.
38.
PanZ.KosickiG. M. (2001). Framing as strategic action in public deliberation. In ReeseS. D.GandyO. H., Jr., & GrantA. E. (Eds.) Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 35–65).
Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39.
ReeseS. D. (2010). Finding frames in a web of culture: The case of the war on terror. In D’AngeloP.KuypersJ. A. (Eds.), Doing new framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 17–42).
New York, NY:
Routledge.
40.
SaguyA. C.RileyK. W. (2005).
Weighing both sides: Morality, mortality, and framing contests over obesity.Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law,
30(5), 869–923.
41.
ScheufeleD. A. (1999).
Framing as a theory of media effects.Journal of Communication,
49(1), 103–122.
SchudsonM. (1989).
The sociology of news production.Media, Culture & Society,
11(3), 263–282.
44.
SnowD. A.RochfordE. B.Jr.WordenS. K.BenfordR. D. (1986).
Frame alignment processes: Micromobilization and movement participation.American Sociological Review,
51(4), 464–481.
45.
SznitmanS. R.LewisN. (2015).
Is cannabis an illicit drug or a medicine? A quantitative framing analysis of Israeli newspaper coverage.International Journal of Drug Policy,
26(5), 446–452.
46.
TankardJ. W. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In ReeseS. D.GandyO. H., Jr., & GrantA. E. (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 95–106).
Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
47.
van GorpB. (2010). Strategies to take subjectivity out of framing analysis. In D’AngeloP.KuypersJ. A. (Eds.), Doing new framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 84–109).
New York, NY:
Routledge.
48.
WeaverD. (2004).
Press bias and politics: How the media frame controversial issues. Political Communication,
21(2), 251–253.
49.
YarteyF. N. A. (2015).
The critical condition of rhetorical choices: The Bush administration’s framing of HIV/AIDS as a national security threat in PEPFAR. The Journal of International Communication,
21(2), 226–240.
