Analysis and interpretation of data

A combination of framing and thematic content analysis is utilised in this research study to analyse and interpret the research data. Both these approaches are employed in order to gain further insight into the representation of nationalisation in the corporate media.

5.6.1 Thematic content analysis and the nationalisation discourse

In particular, thematic analysis is employed to ensure that the research study unravels more nuanced subjective meaning latent in text beyond simple descriptive analysis (DCU School of Communication, 2009). Qualitative analysis that is inductive enables this research study to uncover major themes in the discourse (Duncan, 2014). Therefore, a crucial component of content analysis is the identification of themes, since they often have the ability to reveal information located in articles (Barlow, 2011). In a nutshell, the thematic approach is utilised in the research study to expose the manner in which nationalisation is represented in the corporate media.

The identification of themes followed a process of “careful reading and re-reading of the data”

(Rice and Ezzy, 1999: 258). Each article was read independently, and from that process both primary and secondary themes emerged. Most importantly, the research study followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step process for conducting thematic analysis in social sciences, where the initial step is to ensure familiarity with the data and the topic at hand. From this, thematic categories began to emerge – for example, “negative consequences to the economy”, “investor confidence” and “Malema and nationalisation”. To ensure that the emerging themes fit the nature of the research study, maps of the analysis were created (Boyd, 2015). Therefore, close analysis of all sampled articles and other articles related to the discourse enabled the research study to identify possible themes prevalent in defining the media representation of the nationalisation discourse. Table 5.1 lists a number of categories of recurring themes constructed and defined.

Table 5.1: A list of thematic categories

Theme Broad definition

1. Negative consequences to the economy

This theme emphasises the perceived negative effects the discourse might have on the economy. Terms such as “disastrous consequences for the economy”, “horrific impact on the economy”, “wreck SA’s economy”, “capital flight”, “consider investors” are frequently used.

2. Investor confidence This theme is partially an extension of the first one, but largely locates the nationalisation discourse within an economic perspective and argues that the debate on nationalisation chases away investors and “affects

This theme focuses the debate on the economic situation, challenges and possibilities of the South African economy and the policies underpinning it.

5. Global economic outlook This theme places the discourse in the context of the global economic situation, such as the commodity boom and the global economic crises.

6. Socio-economic issues This theme uses socio-economic factors such as high levels of poverty, unemployment, lack of education and corruption among others to engage the discourse.

7. Nationalisation not government policy

This theme emerges in the context of government officials trying to distance the government from the discourse, and in the process having to assure “investors” that nationalisation is not government policy.

8. Malema and nationalisation

This theme bases the discourse on the then president of the ANC Youth League Julius Malema, and the push for nationalisation. Particularly it prioritises his disciplinary processes within the ANC.

5.6.2 Framing the nationalisation discourse

Many scholars have described framing in the context of the media. Essentially, the term refers to a process used by political players to give meaning and to connect issues to a larger political environment. In the main it defines, diagnoses, provides solutions and most fundamentally predicts the likely effects of the problem at hand (Callaghan and Schnell, 2001; also see Entman, 1993: 52). Most importantly, “Framing effects occur whenever an issue can be presented using multiple packages or thematic slants. Since most public policy issues are inherently multidimensional, the potential for framing abounds” (Callaghan and Schnell, 2001:

185). This is certainly the case with the nationalisation discourse. Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007: 11) argue that framing is “based on the assumption that how an issue is characterised in news reports can have an influence on how it is understood by audiences”. Historically, its roots can be traced back to the studies of psychology and sociology (Pan and Kosicki, 1993).

The psychological origins of framing lie in experimental work by Kahneman and Tversky (1979, 1984), for which Kahneman received the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics (Kahneman, 2003). They examined how different presentations of essentially identical decision-making scenarios influence people’s choices and their evaluation of the various options presented to them. The sociological foundations of framing were laid by Goffman (1974) and others who assumed that individuals cannot understand the world fully and constantly struggle to interpret their life experiences and to make sense of the world around them. In order to efficiently process new information, Goffman argues, individuals therefore apply interpretive schemas or ‘‘primary frameworks’’ (Goffman, 1974, p. 24) to classify information and interpret it meaningfully (Scheufele and Tewksbury, 2007: 11).

Carragee and Roefs (2004: 215) posit that scholars are attracted to framing by its “potential to link news text to production and reception process”. This is because this process examines the manner in which frames are sponsored by political actors, their employment by journalists in the construction of news, their articulation by news stories, and their interpretation by the audience (Entman, 1991, 1993; Gamson, 1992; Reese, 2001). In his seminal definition of framing Entman (1993: 5) argued that “to frame is to select some aspects of perceived reality and make them more salient in a communication text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and /or treatment recommendation for the item describes” (cited in Carragee and Roefs, 2004). Furthermore, Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) point out that framing occurs at both macro and micro levels (also see Scheufele, 1999). As a “macroconstruct”, through framing the media presents information in “such a way that it resonates with existing underlying schemas among their audience (Scheufele and Tewksbury, 2007: 11; also see Shoemaker and Reese, 1996). This is not because the media wants to deceive its audience but, as Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007: 11) postulate, to be “a necessary tool to reduce the complexity of an issue, given the constraints of their respective media related to news holes and airtime” (also see Gans, 1979). Therefore, frames enable the media to present complex information in such a way that it is easily accessible to ordinary audiences by “play[ing] to existing cognitive schemas”. On the other hand, framing as a “microconstruct” describes the manner in which “people use information and presentation features regarding issues as they form impressions” (Scheufele and Tewksbury, 2007: 11).

Chuma (2012: 316) points out that the term framing “refers to the way in which news media resort to particular interpretive structures to set particular events within their broader context”. In this context, framing denotes the “selection to prioritise some facts, images, or developments over others, thereby unconsciously promoting one particular interpretation of events” (Norris et al., 2003: 11 cited in Chuma, 2012). Fundamentally, Chuma (2012) posits that for some scholars such as Entman (1993: 53), framing is about selection and salience, in a process promoting “a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation for the item described”. It is important to note that corporate media utilises frames as a means to locate “events and issues into specific categories defined in part by how they have covered them in the past and other factors, including the media’s editorial policy approaches to the subjects in question (Chuma, 2012:

317). Additionally, according to Chuma (2012: 316) Dell'Orto et al. (2004: 296) suggests that a second category of frames – audience frames – emerged in the 1980s based on the linkages of framing to “discourses or social construction of reality through language, postulating that framing interacts with readers’ cognitive structures for ‘meaning construction’”. As Entman (1993: 53) postulates, audience frames are defined as “mentally stored clusters of ideas that guide individuals’ processing of information” as opposed to media frames that are perceived as principles of selection and salience that give meaning to events and process. Therefore, in examining discourses such as nationalisation, the research study focuses on the media frame to ensure that the analysis yields comprehensive results.

Framing methods are employed in this research study to conduct content analysis of the discourse, principally by employing two possible approaches – inductive and deductive (Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000). As Scheufele (1999) posits, “Mass media actively set frames of reference that readers or viewers use to interpret and discuss public event” (also see Tuchman, 1978). In this regard, “They give the story a ‘spin’, ... taking into account their organisational and modality constraints, professional judgements, and certain judgements about the audience” (Crigler, 1992: 120 cited in Scheufele, 1999). Therefore, the media frame is “a central organising idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events ... the frame suggests what the controversy is about, the essence of the issue” (Gamson and Modigliani, 1987: 143 cited in Scheufele, 1999). According to Tuchman (1978: 193), “The news frame organises everyday reality and the news frame is part and parcel of everyday reality ... [it] is an essential feature of news.” The media frame also serves as a working routine for journalists; it allows them to quickly identify and classify information and “to package it for

efficient relay to their audiences” (Gitlin, 1980: 7). In essence, the media frame is a tool that on the one hand is utilised by the media to package information for the audience and on the other enables audiences to make sense of the media discourses. It is for this reason that in Chapter 7 framing and thematic content analysis are combined to unpack the representation of the nationalisation discourse.

5.6.3 Thematic and framing approaches – triangulation in action

Initially both thematic content analysis and framing approaches are utilised independently to analyse the representation of the discourse. However, it is apparent that when combined, prospects of interesting observations emerging abound. Therefore, the research study combines both these approaches to increase the effective analysis of the representation of nationalisation.

To achieve this objective, the framing methods are employed to identify key frames in the discourse and subsequently, located within these frames, the dominant themes are identified.

Both identified frames and themes are discussed concurrently with the view to gain deeper insights on the representation of the discourse.