Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 www.elsevier.com/locate/poetic Measuring collective action frames: A linguistic approach to frame analysis Stefania Vicari DEIS, University of Sassari, Palazzo Zirolia, Piazza Universita` 11, 07100 Sassari, Italy Available online 19 August 2010 Abstract By focusing on the interpretative aspect of mobilization, the framing perspective has provided significant insights to the social movements literature. Despite the growing number of studies focused on collective action frames, and master frames, the choice of how to investigate frame dynamics remains controversial. This paper explores the question of how researchers could empirically depict and measure framing tasks and frame components by focusing on the linguistic properties of social movement texts. It looks at semantic grammars as a possible way to craft linguistically based coding schemes able to extract collective action frames, as organic systems of meaning, from social movement discourses. It is shown how a ‘‘frame semantic grammar’’ could provide a reliable method ofinvestigation to go from texts to frames, across case studies and research questions. # 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Over the past few decades, meanings and symbols of collective action have become a primary subject of sociological investigation. Growing out of the symbolic interactionist and constructionist traditions, frame analysis has provided a new conceptual framework to explore interpretative collective processes led by social movement actors. The central idea is that grievances are not automatic and self-sustained motives of protest but rather the product of the ongoing interaction among social actors. This focus on the interpretative aspect of mobilization has been highlighted within analyses of cognitive1 and representational schemes of protest. While exploring dynamics of signification, frame analyses have provided interesting insights into social movements’ self-interpretation, society framing, and strategic tactics. Although scholars have been fleshing out processes of meaning construction, the question of how to investigate and compare social movements’ framing is still open (Benford, 1997: 411–414; Benford and Snow, 2000: 633; Gerhards and Rucht, 1992: 573). E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. 1 I use the term ‘‘cognitive schemes’’ drawing upon Goffman’s (1974) original elaboration of frame analysis as a methodological tool able to investigate the way people think about things. 0304-422X/$ – see front matter # 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2010.07.002 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 505 To advance rigor and comparability across cases, any frame methodology should allow the researcher to relate systematically all frame concepts. In this article, I propose a linguistically based approach to textual analysis that aims to capture the multilayered relations among frames, concepts, and words. This approach looks at social movements’ framing by focusing on linguistic structures of texts. First, I will describe the theoretical context characterizing the development of frame analysis and trace the relations among framing tasks and frame concepts. Next, by focusing on the framing potency of linguistic structures, I will address the challenge to define a methodological strategy able to work across case studies and research questions. In particular, I will apply Franzosi’s (2010) use of story grammar coding schemes to the investigation of social movements’ collective action frames. Finally, by using PC-ACE software program, I will develop a linguistically based semantic grammar to analyze a small sample of Declarations of Intents from the World Social Forum coalition2. This will function to show how a ‘‘frame semantic grammar’’ could add to the analysis of social movements’ framing. 1. Theoretical background 1.1. Frame concepts Concepts like beliefs, values, and ideology have experienced a difficult path within social scientific investigations of mobilization. Prior to the 1970s, they were mainly discussed in descriptive terms with no further conceptual elaboration. Throughout the following decade, such concepts lost even more ground with the emergence of resource mobilization approaches, which dismissed them as largely irrelevant to the development of social movements (McCarthy and Zald, 1977).3 In fact, both psychofunctional and resource mobilization theories of the 1970s and early-1980s skimmed over framing issues (Snow et al., 1986: 465). To the extent that grievances were considered at all, analyses suffered from two main problems: on the one hand, old grievance perspectives assumed a mechanical linkage between grievances and movement mobilization, neglecting the importance of individual interpretative processes. On the other hand, resource mobilization approaches presupposed the constancy of grievances in any contentious context with costs and benefits playing as the most influential factors (McCarthy and Zald, 1977: 1215). The production of meanings and ideas within mobilization and countermobilization was under-studied until the emergence of frame approaches in the mid-1980s. Social movements theorists actually turned to cognitive frames when the sociological work began to bridge the apparent gap between culture and social structures (Mohr, 1998: 347). A new priority became that of folding together cultural meaning and social structures ‘‘as primary elements within the same research design’’ (Mohr, 1998: 348). Frame theory, drawing upon Goffman’s (1974) early work, began by focusing exactly on what was left out by previous approaches in social movements research: ‘‘meaning work’’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: 613), or the ‘‘politics of signification’’ (Hall, 1982). Goffman’s work borrowed 2 The World Social Forum is a transnational coalition of local protest groups. It was born in 2001 with the first World Social Forum yearly event held at Porto Alegre, Brazil. 3 Concerning the inclusion of deprivation and grievances in the study of social contention, McCarthy and Zald (1977: 1215) state: ‘‘We want to move from a strong assumption about the centrality of deprivation and grievances to a weak one, which makes them a component, indeed, sometimes a secondary component in the generation of social movements.’’ 506 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 the concept of frame as a mental construct from Bateson’s (1972) early studies on human cognitive behavior in interactive situations, transposing anthropological findings into socio- logical theory. Bateson’s research showed that individuals always apply interpretative frameworks to understand others’ actions and words. Frames help internalize past experience and guide future action/reaction to upcoming events. From a framing perspective, social movements are dynamic collective actors able to engage in the production of meanings and interpretations to be shared with and contrasted by constituents, antagonists, bystanders and outsiders. Social movements’ framing processes are referred to as ‘‘collective action frames:’’ ‘‘action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization’’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: 614). Collective action frames seek to provide a comprehensive understanding of why and how social action should occur, delivering a common platform for processes of meaning construction and signification. Some collective action frames function as comprehensive structures, influencing orientations and activities of different movements. These are generally referred to as ‘‘master frames’’—in contrast to movement-specific collective action frames that might actually derive from them.4 Relying upon Wilson’s (1973) segmentation of ideology into three primary aspects, Snow and Benford (1988: 200) define collective action frames as holding three core tasks: diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational. The diagnostic task involves the identification of one or more problems and the attribution of blame and causality (Snow and Benford, 1988: 200). The prognostic task provides the solution to the problem, the strategic plan or the advocated collective action to change the situation (Benford and Snow, 2000: 616). Finally, the motivational task provides the real call for action or the rationale for engaging in ameliorative collective action. It involves the formulation of a shared vocabulary of action also made of claims, mottos, and logos and can grow out of the elaboration of both diagnostic (Gerhards and Rucht, 1992: 583) and prognostic (Benford, 1993b: 208) framing. These three core tasks construct a movement’s internal and external mobilizing discourse, providing participants and publics with elements for social identification and identity sharing. Addressing frame issues, Gamson (1992b) also provides a series of primary conceptual elements. He distinguishes among three specific frame components shaping collective action frames: injustice, agency, and identity. The injustice component has a highly moral connotation: it ‘‘requires a consciousness of motivated human actors who carry some of the onus for bringing about harm and sufferings’’ (Gamson, 1992b: 7). Drawing upon Zajonc (1980), Gamson (1992b) defines the injustice component as tending towards a ‘‘hot cognition’’ able to strike people’s interpretative frames. The agency component refers to the possibility to alter problematic conditions. It denies the immutability of the societal order and supports the efficacy