Meaning Perspective/Frame of Reference

A frame of reference, also referred to as a ‘meaning perspective’, is, for Mezirow, (1991) the process through which ‘all meaning is construed and all learning takes place’ (1991:4). It can be understood to be the way in which an individual filters the information and meaning they absorb. Like any filter there are layers of filtration or structures which the information must pass through. A person’s frame of reference is compiled by aspects such as a person’s culture, family, socialisations, assumptions, expectations, sociological and psychological development. Mezirow (1990) defined a meaning perspective as referring to the structure of assumptions within which new experience is assimilated and transformed by one’s past experience during the process of interpretation… That they are made up of higher order schemata, theories, propositions, beliefs, prototypes, goal orientations and evaluations… (1990:2).

Mezirow (1991, 2000) suggests that frames of reference are sets of assumptions and expectations held by the person in social, psychological, epistemological, moral-ethical, philosophical, aesthetic domains of a person’s live. These assumptions and expectations can be firmly held and are often

115

difficult to broaden. He suggests that a frame of reference serves as a ‘boundary condition for interpreting the meaning of an experience’ (1991:32) and there is a need to transform a ‘problematic’ frame of reference (2000:20). A problematic frame of reference maybe a belief held from childhood that is no longer useful or helpful as an adult living and interpreting the world. It is by these meaning perspectives that adults make value judgements and develop their belief systems. This is explained by Mezirow when he says that:

Our values and sense of self are anchored in our frames of reference. They provide us with a sense of stability, coherence, community, and identity. Consequently they are often emotionally charged and strongly defended. Other points of view are judged against the standards set by our points of view. Viewpoints that call our frames of reference into question may be dismissed as distorting, deceptive, ill intentioned, or crazy (2000:18).

He says that as adults have

Acquired a coherent body of experience – assumptions, concepts, values, feelings, conditioned responses, - frames of reference that define their world (1977:5).

and again that

Meaning perspectives are acquired through cultural assimilation…or intentionally learned. Other stereotypes we have unintentionally learned (1990:3).

Further he informs us that

Meaning perspectives are, for the most part, uncritically acquired in childhood through the process of socialisation, often in the context of an emotionally charged relationship with parents, teachers, or other mentors. The more intense the emotional context of learning and the more it is reinforced, the more deeply embedded and intractable to change are the habits of expectation that constitute our meaning perspectives (1990:3-4).

116

Commenting on Mezirow’s ‘frame of reference’, Kegan (2000) talks of a frame of reference as being how we make sense of the world. It is a way of knowing, it is an expression of family loyalty. It can have implicit or explicit ethical dimensions and has a ‘moral colouring’ (2000:52). Cranton (2000) also speaks of it as a ‘system for interpreting and evaluating the meaning of experience’. She tells us that:

Our frames of reference are complex webs of assumptions, expectations, values, and beliefs that act as a filter or screen through which we view ourselves and the world. Our cultural background, the knowledge we have acquired, our moral and spiritual beliefs, and our own psychological makeup all influence how we interpret and make meaning out of our experience. A frame of reference can become problematic when we encounter new and different viewpoints or information… (2000:181).

For Mezirow (1990) the transformation of meaning perspectives is about becoming critically aware of ‘how and why our presuppositions have come to constrain the way we perceive, understand and feel about our world… (1990:14). Gould (1990) speaks of the need for adults to ‘revise’ meaning perspectives of the past and to change ‘behaviour patterns and attitudes’. When speaking of frames of reference Mezirow (2000) says:

A frame of reference is the structure of assumptions and expectations (aesthetic, sociolinguistic, moral-ethical, epistemic, psychological) through which we filter and make sense of our world. It is indicative of a ‘habit of mind’ that is expressed as a point of view (Mezirow 1998 in Mezirow & Associates 2000:292).

117

We make meaning of our experience through acquired frames of reference – sets of orienting assumptions and expectations with cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions – that shape, delimit and sometimes distort our understanding (2000:29).

Cranton (1997) also attends to the notion of transformation of frame of reference when she asserts:

We transform our frames of reference through critical reflection on assumptions upon which our interpretations, beliefs, and habits of mind or points of view are based. We become critically reflective of the assumptions we or others make when we learn to solve problems instrumentally or when we are involved in communicative learning (1997: 7).

However, this transformation brought about by critical reflection is not always achieved or even attempted. Mezirow himself acknowledges that transformation is difficult, that it can be very challenging for a person to question or indeed change their frame of reference:

Who we are and what we value are closely associated. So questions raised regarding one’s values are apt to be viewed as a personal attack. Learning tends to be come narrowly defined as efforts to add compatible ideas to elaborate our fixed frames of reference. However, this disposition may be changed through transformative learning (2000:18).

For this reason Mezirow (1978, 1985, 1991, 2000) considers that the most significant transformations in learning are transformations of ‘frames of reference/meaning perspectives’. This is in keeping with what is arguably the central aspect of adult education - to broaden and develop the person’s thought

118

processes, their learning abilities, their critical analysis and decision making. Again Mezirow asserts:

Meaning becomes clarified when one’s beliefs and frames of reference are more likely to produce judgments and opinions that prove true or justified than those based on other frames and beliefs. Meaning becomes clarified when learners become more autonomous as thinkers and learners- that is, negotiate their own purpose, values, judgements, and feelings rather than act on those of others. Meaning becomes clarified by making a decision to act when this is feasible, to learn what one needs to know, to have the emotional stamina to take action effectively, and to learn from the results of taking action when one does so (2000:350).