The Kettering Foundation long ago identified a disconnect between the public and politics. People in communities all over the country felt estranged from their elected representatives, from their public institutions, and most importantly, from each other. A significant portion of this disconnect focused on how issues in communities got named and framed. Kettering surmised, correctly, that if a public issue was named in such a way that the public could not identify with it, then the public would have a difficult time supporting it. However, if the public could identify a public problem together (naming) and then discuss choices on how to solve the particular problem (framing), then the likelihood of greater community action increased ten-fold. (continue)

A "frame" is a way of understanding or interpreting what is going on and how we should relate to it. How we frame an issue or conflict (or how it is framed for us) has a tremendous impact on what we do about it. This post was created in the NCDD wiki, and mainly features an article by Tom Atlee of the Co-Intelligence Institute. (continue)

Public opinion research demonstrates that citizens' opinions depend on elite rhetoric and interpersonal conversations. Yet we continue to have little idea about how these two forces interact with one another. In this paper, the authors address this issue by experimentally examining how interpersonal conversations affect (prior) elite framing effects. Focusing on opinions about campaign finance reform, the authors find that conversations among like-minded people have no effect on elite framing, but conversations that include conflicting perspectives eliminate elite framing effects. (continue)

Issue framing is rooted in the belief that democracy depends upon people making choices together about how to deal with problems in their communities. Framing an issue for public deliberation requires us to examine a problem from many angles. It encourages us to be curious about - and even compassionate toward - ideas that differ from our own, so that our deliberations may help us discover common ground for action. A well-framed issue will be inclusive of differing perspectives and will be framed in public terms that citizens can relate to. This great 22-page workbook takes you through the various components or steps of framing an issue for public deliberation. (continue)

In some way or another, most public issues need all of us to help remove the supports that keep the issues propped up and causing problems. The process of framing the approaches to the issues, and then deliberating them, assures that the issues get the complex attention they need. It is a foundation for multilateral action in the necessary combinations that most issues need, if we really intend to work on them. It assures we can discover and creatively use all perspectives - including, but not only, our favorite ones. (continue)

Back in 2003, there was a great conversation on the main NCDD Discussion list sparked by the question "What should we do when our most visible collaborator is perceived as liberal, yet our goals are to involve people with all ideologies?" That conversation evolved to address the all-important question "Are conservatives less interested in citizen engagement than liberals?" Here is a summary of that meaty conversation... (continue)

This 2008 working paper written by Alison Kadlec and Will Friedman for Public Agenda shares the preliminary results of research they are conducting to learn about the impacts of different types of issue framing on the capacity and willingness of diverse groups of individuals to engage in productive dialogue and deliberation about complex issues. The research builds on and tests ideas presented in Will Friedman’s article “Reframing Framing,” in which Friedman distinguishes between typical media framing that presents issues in dualistic ways (debate style) and ... (continue)

While framing has received significant mainstream attention of late, what is not being discussed is the limited context in which framing is conceived. The current infatuation with framing is concerned virtually exclusively with the power politics of parties and interest groups, and the winning or losing of their respective battles. But what if we asked instead about the relationship of framing to fostering citizenship and enabling democratic deliberation and dialogue? What if we were to reframe framing to focus less on how it can help ... (continue)