Читать книгу Health News and Responsibility - Lesa Hatley Major - Страница 15
Оглавление25 Years of Thematic and Episodic: A Content Analysis of the Scholarly Research in Academic Journals
We conducted a quantitative content analysis of the scholarly journal articles investigating thematic and episodic frames in health news. While our effort is similar to other investigations of framing research—to expand theoretical and practical knowledge of framing research—primarily we want to develop a better understanding of how thematic and episodic frames have been used to study health news by examining specific variables. We present a variety of descriptive findings from our study, followed by a more in-depth analysis of how thematic and episodic frames in health news have been studied, both conceptually and operationally.
As Matthes notes, operational definitions in framing studies can be “translated to frame indicators or cited to ground the reader in framing literature” (2009, p. 350). The studies we included in our analysis fall into two categories: ones using thematic and episodic framing definitions in the literature review only, and ones operationalizing thematic and episodic frames for measurement or testing. We present the findings in two stages. We cover the results from an analysis of all the studies included in our analysis, followed by a separate look at the research articles that tested/measured thematic and episodic frames—actual operationalization. Analyzing the studies that operationalized thematic and episodic frames separate from the others allows us to gauge how knowledge of these frames has advanced theoretically and practically.
←37 | 38→
Assessing the State of Thematic/Episodic Framing Research on Health News
We developed a list of search terms to capture published journal articles about thematic and episodic frames (see Appendix A for a list of search terms). We opted for breadth in our first search for scholarly articles, thus entering the search terms into all relevant academic databases, including Academic Search (EBSCO), ComAbstracts, Communication Source, and JSTOR. We did not include books, book chapters or monographs, which some may consider a limitation. We focused on journal articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. While we did our best to cast a wide net to capture all journal articles relevant to our search, we realize it’s unlikely we were successful. Our initial search resulted in 702 articles. After removing duplicate articles, our pool totaled 616.
Three trained coders examined the articles to determine which studies should be selected for analysis. The coder training for this part of the study involved three sessions followed by one session to refine the initial coding sheet. We selected articles based on the following criteria: 1) studies that operationalized thematic and episodic frames for frame extraction/ measurement/ testing, or 2) studies that defined thematic and episodic frames for conceptual purposes to ground the reader, 3) studies examining news coverage (news content production, news content, and news content effects)1 and 4) studies examining social problems. We defined a social problem as a recognized “condition or situation that (at least some) actors label a ‘problem’ in the arenas of public discourse and action, defining it as harmful” (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988, p 70). Using a social determinants of health approach (SDH), which posits public health and health disparities are affected by social, environmental, historical, political, and economic factors, we included all research about health issues that met our criteria for inclusion.
To establish intercoder reliability, a 10% random sample was selected and the four criteria variables were coded. Sufficient reliability was reached on the use of thematic and episodic frames (citing in literature for grounding or operationalization Kalpha = .86), and whether the research examined news (Kalpha = .98). Sufficient reliability was not achieved on social issue topic (Hayes & Krippendorf, 2007). During a training session, we refined our criteria to be more specific. A second full round of coding on a 10% random sample with the revised codebook and ←38 | 39→the same coders resulted in sufficient reliability on topics defined as a social issue (Kalpha = .84). The final pool included 122 scholarly journal articles.
As we discussed earlier, a preliminary review of the 122 articles revealed the majority of these studies were conducted on health news. In total, 77 of the 122 articles examined thematic and episodic frames in health news. The 77 articles became the focus of our analysis on research articles investigating thematic and episodic frames in health news.
To develop the coding sheet for our content analysis of the final selection of articles, we reviewed several state of knowledge studies that have examined research in communication journals (Matthes, 2009; Bryant & Miron, 2004; Trumbo, 2004). We determined Matthes’ 2009 investigation of media framing research published in the top communication journals between 1990 and 2005 was a good fit for most of what we wanted to analyze in our study. He developed a systematic process for conducting a content analysis on media framing studies in research journals.
Our work differs from Matthes’ study because we focus on thematic and episodic frames, and we examine all of the studies, not just those using content analysis. However, just as Matthes aimed “to provide a basis for a critical self-reflection on framing research” (p. 350), we attempt to do the same for research on thematic and episodic frames in health news. Matthes’ four aspects of conceptualizing and coding frames provides a solid foundation upon which we can build our work. We have adapted four aspects of conceptualizing and coding frames in research: 1) definitions and how they are used for operationalization, 2) the type of frames, 3) use of theory, and 4) the methods of frame analysis (Matthes, 2009). We measure descriptive variables and methodology variables since we are coding studies using a variety of methods.
Definitions and Operationalization
We expect the majority of the studies will refer to Iyengar’s definitions (1991)—thematic (broader context) and episodic (single person or event) in some way, but we are interested in the other definitions of thematic and episodic frames that appear in these studies. Some public health scholars and practitioners have identified Iyengar’s definitions of a thematic frame as closely related to the public health model of reporting, which emphasizes the role of social determinants in public health. This frame focuses on external causes and treatments for public health issues. The treatment focuses primarily on policy solutions to address public health problems (Wallach et al., 1993). Thematic and episodic frames are related to the ←39 | 40→ecological model of health used by many public health scholars and practitioners to develop public health campaigns, public policy, and advocacy messages.
The ecological approach posits individual behavior is influenced by intrapersonal, sociocultural, policy, and physical-environmental factors (Glanz, Rimer, & Lewis, 2002). These variables interact, and multiple levels of environmental variables are identified as relevant to understanding and changing behaviors. McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, and Glanz (1988) proposed an ecological model of health behaviors, which identified multiple levels of influence. The approach is designed to help researchers and practitioners systematically assess and intervene on each level of influence. The five levels of influence are intrapersonal factors, interpersonal processes and primary groups, institutional factors, community factors, and public policy. This approach identifies specific levels of analysis most relevant for explaining and changing health behaviors. Much of what is described in the public health model of reporting (thematic framing) is found in a reporting model focused on the ecological models of health behavior. It is possible researchers will combine these levels of influence with episodic and thematic framing.
It is not unusual for episodic and thematic frames to be referred to as individual and societal. These terms are commonly used interchangeably with episodic (individual) and thematic (societal), as well as employed as a way to measure and test episodic and thematic frames. All in all, these are clearly defined concepts in terms of how episodic and thematic can be defined in health news. As per our discussion in an earlier chapter, health has been defined as an individual problem (causal attribution and treatment attribution) for years.
We expect some of the studies included in our quantitative analysis will measure/test other frames along with thematic and episodic frames. An important task for us in our research here is to gain an understanding of what frames are examined in conjunction with thematic and episodic frames and how these frames are defined for examination. Nathanson’s (1999) framing factors associated with risks that impact whether and when public opinion might increase for policy solutions fits with the thematic frame. Nathanson’s research suggests when people are at risk due to no fault of their own, when the larger social group is placed at risk, when the risks are pervasive in the environment, and when it can be demonstrated the risk was knowingly created by some external agency, the pressure will increase for a public policy response to the public health risk. These are the types of frames researchers might measure or test when investigating health news. Information related to personal risk and public risk could be essential in determining if a shift from episodic framing to thematic framing had occurred.
Matthes offered two basic genres of definitions for frames (Entman, Matthes, & Pellicano, 2009). General definitions describe the term “frame” without clear ←40 | 41→guidelines for operationalization. Gitlin’s description of frames as “principles of selection, emphasis, and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens and what matters” (1980, p. 6) is ambiguous in terms of providing researchers a way to concretely measure or test a frame. Another favorite framing definition to cite but difficult to operationalize is Gamson and Modigliani’s (1987) “central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events” (p. 143). Other definitions provide specific operational guidelines allowing for “inferences that distinguish framing from themes, arguments, assertions and under-theorized concepts” (Matthes, 2009, p. 4). The oft-cited Entman description of what frames do: define problems, make moral judgments, and provide solutions to problems (1993) falls into this category.
Communication researchers have identified two distinct types of media framing effects: equivalency framing and emphasis framing (Iyengar, 2005). Equivalency framing, that is, gain and loss frames, include “the use of different, but logically equivalent, words or phrases” to explain the same issues, events or experiences, while emphasis framing, that is, thematic and episodic frames, involves drawing attention to a specific “subset of potentially relevant considerations” (Druckman, 2001). The thematic frame places an issue in a broader, more general context. This type of news coverage usually provides the audience with a more in-depth report that may include supporting statistical evidence and/or policy solutions for issues. An example of thematic framing would be a story about obesity that addressed the scientific evidence, social determinants (education, environmental conditions) that contributed to the problem and potential policy and political solutions.
Episodic framing depicts issues in terms of individual instances or specific events (Iyengar, 2005). For example, an episodic story about obesity would provide details about an individual struggling with health problems related to obesity. Solutions tend to focus on the individual responsibility. Health reporting often contains both emphasis and equivalency framing in the same story.
Generic and Issue-specific Frames
Our study distinguishes between generic and issue-specific (Matthes, 2009; deVreese, 2005). As Bruggemann and D’Angelo (2018) note, the difference between the two is straightforward. Generic frames transcend thematic limitations because they can be identified across different issues, while issue-specific frames, topic-specific frames (Scheufele, 2004), and context specific frames (Shah, McLeod & Lee, 2009) involve unique ways to contextualize a topic, event, person, issue, campaign, or some other object (Bruggemann & D’Angelo, 2018). Interestingly, ←41 | 42→Bruggemann and D’Angelo (2018) propose a tiered approach to analyze generic and issue-specific frames. These researchers argue that investigations, including both or rather conceiving of frames as hybrids of both generic and issue-specific, offers researchers a holistic approach to framing analysis.
Iyengar’s thematic and episodic frames are examples of generic frames (Iyengar, 1991) along with the five frames: conflict, human interest, economic consequences, morality, and responsibility (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). It is not uncommon for research on thematic and episodic frames, especially content analysis, to measure specific frames and identify and/or collapse those frames into the categories of episodic (individual) and thematic (societal). Often thematic and episodic frames are measured at both the causal attribution and solution attribution levels.
Thematic and episodic frames are categorized as generic (able to generalize across issues; Scheufele, 2004) and emphasis (drawing attention to relevant contributions; Druckman, 2001). We are interested in how researchers define thematic and episodic frames in their investigations. Researchers may include a definition in the literature review along with other definitions to ground readers in framing theory, or when operationalizing these frames for measurement/testing.
In terms of discourse units (units of analysis), scholars have identified news items or articles as discourse units (Husselbee & Elliot, 2002), some use the proposition (Pan & Kosicki, 1993), and some focus on visual features (King & Lester, 2005). Three roles have been identified for visual elements including: 1) the text is coded—visuals ignored (Matthes & Kohring, 2008), 2) visuals are directly coded as a component of a frame (as a unit of analysis) (Esser & D’Angelo, 2003), 3) visual elements are not the main component of a frame but are discussed when interpreting the frame (Parmelee, 2002). In terms of identifying frames, some scholars identify multiple frames per discourse unit while others extract one frame (Kerbel, Apee, & Ross, 2000).
Matthes (2009) found the majority of framing research examined in his content analysis of framing research did not test hypotheses regarding framing analysis—most were descriptive. For years scholars have maintained that framing research is mostly descriptive and largely atheoretical (Roskos-Ewoldson, 2003). While descriptive research is highly useful to the field, a less descriptive approach is necessary to advance and build our understanding of thematic and episodic framing theory. Theory testing involves deriving hypotheses about the nature and the structure of frames, including episodic and thematic frames. Research methods ←42 | 43→textbooks described the statistical hypothesis testing strategy as the hypothetico-deductive method. The process is defined as a researcher deducing one statement (or a few statements) from the theory and comparing that statement with many observations. If the observations tend to match the statement (e.g., not due to chance, p<.05), then the hypothesis is considered as confirmed, and confidence in the statement is substantially increased (Stiles, 2009).
We included the following theoretical linkage variables: presence of hypotheses testing (or research questions); linkage to theory through antecedents (e.g. conditions of production) or consequences (e.g. potential effects) and use of other research methods (e.g. survey, experiment, interview) or extra-media data (e.g. Census, CDC reports) (Mattes, 2009; Riffe & Frietag, 1997).
We assert one of the reasons health news dominates thematic and episodic framing research is the connection these frames have to attribution of responsibility—an outcome directly related to possible policy solutions. Iyengar’s work demonstrated thematically-framed news stories about social issues/problems lead people to hold society responsible for the problem/issues, while episodically-framed stories lead people to hold individuals responsible for the problem/issue (1991). We measured if and how researchers measured or tested attribution of responsibility for health problems. We coded for references cited in relation to testing or measuring attribution of responsibility. For example, Nathanson (1999) four factors on whether public policy solutions will be sought for health issues, Stone’s work on public policy (2002), and Wallack, Dorfman, Jernigan, and Themba (1993) media advocacy strategy, or other references to reframing issues in terms of causality and treatment responsibility attribution. If researchers are examining thematic and episodic frames in health news in this context, we gain knowledge about how the framing of issues shift from individual to societal responsibility and what this means for public support of policy solutions.
We assessed the following methodology variables in an effort to provide as much information and clarity about the research conducted using thematic and episodic frames: a) inductive, deductive or both, b) quantitative, qualitative or mixed, c) data-gathering method, d) thematic/episodic frame cited or operationalized, e) other frames operationalized, if yes, generic or issue-specific, and f) sample (random, purposive, census). Variables specific to each data-gathering method were coded as well.
Our definition of “inductive” and “deductive” refers to the methodology used in the research we examined. In other words, we did not use these terms to refer ←43 | 44→to broad epistemological orientations (Matthes, 2009). Iyengar’s episodic and thematic frames are examples of deductive, quantitative frames, but many researchers examine thematic and episodic frames in conjunction with other frames (e.g. generic frames or issue-specific frames) using mixed methods. For example, researchers might use the inductive method of an exploratory analysis of content to identify specific issue frames in a small sample. Those frames would be defined in a codebook and coded in a quantitative content analysis (Simon & Xenos 2000; Husselbee & Elliot). Other researchers might mix a qualitative method with a quantitative method; combining inductive with deductive (e.g. focus groups with a series of experiments using thematic and episodic frames).
Coding Instrument. Descriptive variables included journal title, publication year, country(ies) where research was conducted, broad subject of research, subtopics of research, medium investigated, and type of content investigated. Method variables coded included: quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods; data-gathering; inductive, deductive or mixed methods; and sampling. Specific variables were coded based on data-gathering. For content analysis, the following method variables were coded: unit of analysis, visual unit of analysis, coding of frames, intercoder reliability, coding based on numbers or text, data reduction techniques, and coding manual or computer-assisted. For experiments, the following method variables were coded: number of factors, name of factors, dependent variables, mediating variables, moderating variables. For surveys, the following method variables were coded: number of variables and name of variables.
In terms of conceptual variables, coding determined whether the definitions of thematic and episodic frames were explicitly translated for operationalization or if they were cited in the literature to ground the reader only. It’s not uncommon for scholars to present multiple definitions of frames in literature reviews of framing studies including research involving thematic and episodic frames and attribution of responsibility. If other framing definitions were included in the research, we distinguished between them in the following way: we coded for definitions presented in the literature (coded up to five including the scholar(s) and the name of the frame(s). If another frame(s) along with thematic and episodic was operationalized, it was coded. First, we identified the frame(s) that was operationalized and second, we determined whether the frame(s) was either generic or issue-specific. We coded for main findings of each study (up to four). The main findings had to be identified by the author(s) of the study.
←44 | 45→
Theory variables included the use of hypotheses, research questions and descriptive results. We did not distinguish if a study reported both hypotheses and research questions. If hypotheses were reported, we coded the study as hypotheses “present = 1” no matter if research questions were also present. We coded if antecedents or consequences of other frames and/or theories were present. The following levels were used to code antecedents: a) merely discussed (without data presented), b) interview data, c) factual data presented (survey, experiment), and d) content analysis (press releases, documents, government reports or other content). We coded the same levels for the presence of consequences of other frames and/or theoretical data.
The first author and a second coder conducted the first full round of coding on a 10% random sample yielding insufficient reliability (Hayes & Krippendorf, 2007). The codebook was carefully refined based on the results of the first round of coding. A second full round of coding on a 10% random sample with the revised codebook and the same coders resulted in sufficient reliabilities (see appendix B). The first author performed the coding on the remainder of the articles. Since we conducted a full census of research articles, statistical significance tests were not performed.
Because we separate our findings by studies that operationalized thematic and episodic frames and those that defined the frames to ground readers in order to simplify the results for presentation, we begin with that information. Fifty-eight percent of the studies operationalized thematic and episodic frames in the methods section of published research (n = 45), while 32% defined thematic and episodic frames in cited literature to ground readers (n = 32).
Basic Descriptive Results. The Journal of Health Communication published 14 (18%) articles followed by articles in Health Communication with six articles (7.8%) and Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly with six articles (7.8%). Social Science & Medicine was third with five articles (6.5%) (See Table 4.1 for full list).
| Journal | Frequency | Percent |
| American Journal of Public Health | 7 (4) | 9.1 |
| Appetite | 1 | 1.3 |
| Atlantic Journal of Communication | 1 | 1.3 |
| CyberPsychology and Behavior | 1 | 1.3 |
| Disability & Society | (1) | 1.3 |
| Health Communication | 6 (4) | 7.8 |
| Health, Risk & Society | 2 (1) | 2.6 |
| Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the | 1 | 1.3 |
| Social Study of Health, Illness, & Medicine | ||
| Howard Journal of Communications | 1 | 1.3 |
| Human Communication Research | 2 | 2.6 |
| International Communication Gazette | 2 | 2.6 |
| Jour. of Applied Communication Research | (1) | 1.3 |
| Jour. of Child Sexual Abuse | (1) | 1.3 |
| Journal of Communication | 2 (1) | 2.6 |
| Jour. of Contingencies & Crisis Mgmt.(1) | 1.3 | |
| Journal of Health Communication | 14 (9) | 18.2 |
| Jour. of Health Politics, Policy & Law | 1 | 1.3 |
| Journal of Mental Health | (1) | 1.3 |
| Journal of Public Health Policy | (1) | 1.3 |
| Jour. of Reproductive & Infant Psychology | 1 | 1.3 |
| Journal of Safety Research | (1) | 1.3 |
| Journalism & Mass Comm. Quarterly | (6) | 7.8 |
| Mass Communication & Society | (1) | 1.3 |
| Media Psychology | (1) | 1.3 |
| Media, Culture & Society | (1) | 1.3 |
| Milbank Quarterly | (1) | 1.3 |
| Newspaper Research Journal | (2) | 2.6 |
| Obesity Reviews | 1 | 1.3 |
| Pediatrics | (1) | 1.3 |
| Political Psychology | (1) | 1.3 |
| Politics and the Life Sciences | 1 | 1.3 |
| Prevention Science | 1 | 1.3 |
| Science Communication | 4 (2) | 5.2 |
| Social Science & Medicine | 5 (2) | 6.5 |
| Tobacco Control | 1 | 1.3 |
| Transylvania Rev. of Administrative Sciences | 1 (1) | 1.3 |
| Total | 77 (45) | 100% (60%) |
Interestingly, research investigating episodic and thematic frames in health news began to increase substantially in 2007. Thirty-five percent of the research occurred during the years 2013, 2014 and 2015.
| Year | Frequency | Percent |
| 2018 | (1) | 1.3 |
| 2017 | 5(4) | 6.5 |
| 2016 | 5(3) | 6.5 |
| 2015 | 8 (5) | 10.4 |
| 2014 | 9 (5) | 11.7 |
| 2013 | 10 (5) | 13 |
| 2012 | 5 (2) | 6.5 |
| 2011 | 5 (4) | 6.5 |
| 2010 | (4) | 5.2 |
| 2009 | 5 (2) | 6.5 |
| 2008 | 3 (2) | 3.9 |
| 2007 | 6 (2) | 7.8 |
| 2006 | 3 (3) | 3.9 |
| 2005 | 1 | 1.3 |
| 2004 | 1 | 1.3 |
| 2002 | 3 (2) | 3.9 |
| 1999 | 1 | 1.3 |
| 1998 | 1 | 1.3 |
| 1997 | (1) | 1.3 |
| Total | 77 (45) | 100% |
←45 | 46→←46 | 47→
Over 77% of published research on thematic and episodic frames in health news has been conducted in the United States with 60 journal articles. Canada was second with five articles (6.5%) and China was third with three articles (3.9%). (See Table 4.3 complete list). Health topics that received attention in Canada include: health policy, heart disease, cancer, mad cow disease and infertility. Published research conducted in China dealt with SARS, Human Papillomavirus and mental health. Only 5% of the research is conducted by two or more countries with four published articles. China was named in two studies with Ghana and South Africa one each.
| Country | Frequency | Percent |
| Australia | 1 | 1.3 |
| Canada | 5 (3) | 6.5 |
| China | 3 (2) | 3.9 |
| Ireland | 1 | 1.3 |
| Netherlands | (1) | 1.3 |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1.3 |
| Romania | (1) | 1.3 |
| Singapore | (1) | 1.3 |
| South Korea | (1) | 1.3 |
| Sweden | (2) | 2.6 |
| United States | 60 (34) | 77.9 |
| Total | 77 (45) | 100% |
Obesity dominated research investigating thematic and episodic framing in news stories with 15 published articles (19.5%) followed by 12 articles examining health policy (15.6%). Mental health, violence and tobacco follow with five articles a piece (6.5%). (See Table 4.4).
| Topic | Frequency | Percent |
| Accidents | (1) | 1.3 |
| ADHD | (1) | 1.3 |
| Alcohol | 3 (1) | 3.9 |
| Autism | 3 (1) | 3.9 |
| Cancer | (2) | 2.6 |
| Diabetes | 2 (1) | 2.6 |
| Ebola | (1) | 1.3 |
| Environmental Health | 1 | 1.3 |
| Heart Disease | 1 (1) | 1.3 |
| Health Policy | 12 (9) | 15.6 |
| Health Reporting | 1 | 1.3 |
| HIV /AIDS | 1 | 1.3 |
| HPV | (1) | 1.3 |
| Infertility | 1 | 1.3 |
| Influenza | (1) | 1.3 |
