Frames and frame-conflicts in socio-ecological issues

This thesis explores frames around Arctic natural resource development. The importance of how socio-ecological issues are framed has become increasingly recognised (Miller, 2000). Frames as a conceptual framework can be considered as one type of discourse approach (Hajer and Versteeg, 2005; Shmueli, 2008; Arts and Buizer, 2009) with the application of discourse theory to socio-ecological and sustainability issues receiving considerable interest in recent decades (Dryzek, 2005;

Han Onn and Woodley, 2014). Whilst variations exist over the meaning of discourse within the social sciences (Späth, 2012), a commonly cited definition (Arts and Buzier, 2009) comes from Hajer (1995), who describes discourse as:

‘a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorisations that is produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given physical and social realities (Hajer, 1995, p44)

The theoretical debates surrounding different approaches to discourse analysis are extensive and complex (see Jaworski and Coupland (1999) and Howarth (2000) for comprehensive overviews). The debate is often simplified into two general

33

perspectives: a Critical Discourse Analysis, focusing explicitly on linguistic components of discourse, and a Foucauldian perspective with less focus on linguistics, instead placing emphasis on how social practices, power and institutions are manifestations of discursive power (Fairclough, 2003; Doulton and Brown, 2009). In reality, approaches to discourse analysis tend to be more nuanced incorporating elements from varying perspectives, explicitly or otherwise (Arts and Buzier, 2009).

A frequently cited definition of frames is found in Schön and Rein's (1994) work on intractable policy controversies, where they describe frames as ‘underlying structures of belief, perception and appreciation’ behind particular standpoints (p23). The

‘underlying’ nature of frames entails an element of difficulty in their analysis, as the frames deployed by those discussing an issue are not necessarily explicitly presented (Lakoff, 2010). Frames act as a heuristic in which the complexity of reality is organised into something coherent and meaningful (Gamson et al., 1992; Carvalho, 2000) or as what Goffman (1974) refers to as ‘the definition of the situation’ and

‘organisation of experience’. As a consequence, frames lead to the promotion of certain aspects over others; Entman (1993) describes the act of framing as:

‘…selecting some aspects of a perceived reality and making them more salient in a communicating context, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described’

(Entman, 1993 cited in Van Lieshout et al., 2011, p38) Van Hulst and Yanow (2016), expanding on Rein and Schön's (1977) work, describe five processes involved in framing: naming, selecting, categorizing, storytelling and sense-making. Sense-making, sometimes described as ‘signification work’ (Reinecke and Ansari, 2015), refers to the ‘work’ actors put in to comprehend an uncertain situation, often stemming from prior cognitive experiences with the issue. This is partly done for ‘practical necessity’, reducing the complexity of the issue and

‘enabling them to frame the situation they are engaging in ways that they can act in and on’ (Van Hulst and Yanow, 2016, p99). From this foundation, framing work involves the act of naming, categorising and selecting/omitting in order for certain aspects to be communicated. This work is then bound together, developed and

34

reinforced through a process of storytelling (or ‘narrative frames’), these stories offering coherence of meaning to what actors observe and how they think it should be (Miller, 2000; Van Hulst and Yanow, 2016).

In research sharing similar aims as this thesis, scholars outline various examples of categorisation schemes of common frames found among stakeholders involved in an environmental dispute (Shmueli, 2008; Dewulf et al., 2009; Buijs et al., 2011). To present one prominent example, Gray (2003) outlines a categorisation scheme in Lewicki et al.'s (2003) exploration of intractable environmental conflicts. Here, three prevalent ‘generic frames’ are detailed: identity, characterisation and conflict management. Identity frames are concerned with how stakeholders identify themselves within the context of the issue; characterisation frames with how stakeholders understand others involved; and conflict management frames focus on how an individual feels a conflict should be managed and resolved (ibid.). Alongside these three generic frames are five less-prevalent frames: social control, risk, whole story, power and loss versus gain. Social control frames involve views on how society is and should be organised, using the four perspectives of social relations found in cultural theory; risk frames are concerned with the level and type of risk involved;

power frames focus upon how power is distributed across stakeholders; whole story frames are larger narratives espoused by stakeholders that contextualise the issue; and gain versus loss frames relate to the extent stakeholders feel they will gain or lose in the situation (ibid.). Within these generic frames exist various other sub-categories, which can make the typology feel somewhat sprawling and unrefined.

The above example highlights the difficulty in forming a universal typology around the frame concept. Whilst some commonalities exist in terminology and wording, there is often much variation. Hence, the frames described in this thesis may not necessarily align with the categorisation of other similar research. An element of ambiguity is unsurprising given framing research ‘represents a smorgasbord of approaches that differ conceptually, ontologically and methodologically from each other’ (Dewulf et al., 2009, p156). For some, however, the flexibility of the frame concept raises concerns. While a diversity of theoretical approaches may have benefits, some argue there is a danger too much conceptual malleability can make it meaningless (Reese, 2007; Dewulf et al., 2009). In some cases, a blurring and

35

interchangeable use of terminology can contribute towards conceptual confusion (e.g.

switching between ‘frames’ and discourses’ (see Hovardas and Korfiatis (2008)).

However, such conceptual ambiguities are not unique to the framing literature. While acknowledging the academic debates around the meaning of the frame concept, these debates are not addressed in this thesis, as such conceptual scrutiny is beyond the scope of its research aims and objectives. Its use of frames, as outlined in the empirical chapters, relates to the emphasis on certain aspects of an issue and how this shapes problem and solution definitions (Entman, 1993).

For many, divergent frames lie at the heart of socio-ecological problems, where multiple stakeholders prioritise different socio-economic and environmental aspects, ascribe differing values or place importance at different scales (Leach, 2008; Jacobs and Buijs, 2011; Van Lieshout et al., 2011; Cairns and Stirling, 2014). It is divergent frames around Arctic offshore that are examined in Chapters 3 and 4. Often described as ‘intractable conflicts’ (Lewicki et al., 2003), stakeholder perspectives can vary to such an extent that interpretations of an issue are mutually incompatible (Hvordas and Korfiatis, 2008). In the context of a shift in environmental policy towards ‘the inclusion of a wider range of stakeholders and publics and for open and more deliberative policy-making forums’ (Bulkeley and Mol, 2003, p144), such intractability has implications for decision-makers. For such situations, frame analysis has particular utility, as it can help ‘clarify, simplify and communicate to the parties within the conflict the underlying roots of their respective positions and interests in order to further mutual understanding and facilitate compromise or resolution’

(Shmueli, 2008, p2048). Some argue frame analysis is the first step towards a

‘reframing’ process that may help resolve conflict (Buijs et al., 2011). This is especially significant in an Arctic context where norms around cooperation are increasingly being promoted (Käpylä and Mikkola, 2015).

This is not to suggest that frame analysis seeks to find consensus amongst all stakeholders involved in an environmental dispute. Whether or not achieving consensus between irreducible worldviews is even possible or indeed desirable (Nie, 2003; Cairns et al., 2014), there is growing understanding that effective policy requires some degree of unavoidable coordination between these divergent frames (Van Den Hove, 2006; Reed et al., 2009). How sufficient overlap between opposing positions

36

could be co-constructed to reach agreement offers rich opportunities for research (Dewulf et al., 2009). Some claim divergent frames can converge if stakeholders are better informed about the issue and that an optimal policy solution is attainable (Small et al., 2014). However, generally there is a belief that socio-ecological problems have

‘no single best solution, [therefore] decision makers must seek management policies and processes that are “satisficing”—that is, potentially broadly acceptable and implementable— rather than optimal’ (Balint et al., 2011, p2). As such, trade-offs and compromise are inevitable (Norton, 2005; Cairns et al., 2014). Frame analyses like this thesis are well-placed to aid in facilitating this process (Arts and Buizer, 2009).