The public debate over biotechnology has been especially intense in Switzerland. The frame theory is introduced as a promising approach for better understanding this controversy. One shortcoming of current frame research is the diversity of frame typologies. An attempt to compare and integrate several frame typologies is presented. The theoretical analysis suggests that most of the frames are not issue specific but of a more general nature. The empirical section presents the framing of biotechnology over the past thirty years, during which increasing conflicts paralleled a higher diversity of frames in the media.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bauer, M. W., M. Kohring, A. Allansdottir, and J. Gutteling. 2001. The dramatisation of biotechnology in the elite mass media. In Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy, edited by G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer, 35-53. London: Science Museum.
2.
Bonfadelli, H., U. Dahinden, M. Leonarz, M. Schanne, C. Schneider, and S. Knickenberg. 2001. Biotechnology in Switzerland–From street demonstrations to regulations. In Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy, edited by G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer, 282-291. London: Science Museum.
3.
Braun, R.1998. Lessons from the Swiss biotechnology referendum. European Federation of Biotechnology Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology briefing paper 8, August. Retrieved from http://www.kluyver.stm.tudelft.nl/efb/TGPPB/pdf/eng8.pdf
4.
Couldry, N.1999. Disrupting the media frame at Greenham Common: A new chapter in the history of mediations?Media, Culture & Society21:337-358.
5.
Dunwoody, S.1992. The media and public perceptions of risk: How journalists frame risk stories. In The social response to environmental risk: Policy formulation in an age of uncertainty, edited by D. W. Bromley and K. Segerson, 75-100. Boston: Kluwer.
6.
Durant, J.1999. Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy26 (5): 313-319.
7.
Durant, J., M. W. Bauer, and G. Gaskell. 1998. Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European source book. London: Science Museum.
8.
Entman, R. M.1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43 (4): 51-58.
9.
Gamson, W., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95:1-37.
10.
Gaskell, G., and M. W. Bauer, eds. 2001. Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. London: Science Museum.
11.
Iyengar, S., and A. Simon. 1993. News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion–A study of agenda-setting, priming and framing. Communication Research20:365–383.
12.
Just, M., A. Crigler, and R. Neumann. 1996. Cognitive and affective dimensions of political conceptualization. In The psychology of political communication, edited by A. Crigler, 133-148. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13.
Life Sciences in European Society. 2002. Home page. Available: http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/lses/
14.
Linder, W.1994. The Swiss political culture: Managing conflict in multicultural society.New York: St. Martin's.
15.
McCombs, M., and S. Ghanem. 2001. The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In Framing public life–Perspectives on our understanding of the social world, edited by S. Reese, O. Gandy, and A. Grant, 67-82. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
McCombs, M. E., and D. L. Shaw. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36:176-187.
17.
McCombs, M. E., and D. L. Shaw. 1993. The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication43 (2): 58-67.
18.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. London: Polity.
19.
Peters, H. P.1994. Wissenschaftliche Experten in der öffentlichen Kommunikation über Technik, Umwelt und Risiken. In Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft 34: Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen, pp. 162-190.
20.
Priest, S. H.1995. Information equity, public understanding of science and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication45 (1): 39-54.
21.
Reese, S. D., and B. Buckalew. 1995. The militarism of local television—The routine framing of the Persian Gulf War. Critical Studies in Mass Communication12:40-59.
22.
Reese, S., O. Gandy, and A. Grant. 2001. Framing public life—Perspectives on our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Scheufele, B., and H. B. Brosius. 1999. The frame remains the same? Stabilität und Kontinuität journalistischer Selektionskriterien am Beispiel der Berichterstattung über Anschläge auf Ausländer und Asylbewerber. Rundfunk und Fernsehen47:409-432.
24.
Scheufele, D.1999. Framing as theory of media effects. Journal of Communication49 (1): 103-122.
25.
Semetko, H. A., and P. M. Valkenburg. 2000. Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication50 (2): 93-109.
26.
Van Gorp, B.2001. Where is the frame? A quest for the surplus value in framing research. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, Washington, DC, 24-28 May.
