Frames in Production: Actors, Networks, Diffusion (FRAMENET)
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Warwick
Department Name: Politics and International Studies
Abstract
Political actors do not present issues objectively. They emphasise certain aspects and deemphasise others and influence the way the audience thinks about the issue, which is called a framing effect. A forest, for example, can be framed as a resource pool to be exploited, a source of artistic inspiration, a fragile and complex ecosystem, or a threat that must be tamed. Each of these alternative frames points to a different policy prescription. Moreover, not every frame is equally influential on its audience. Existing research demonstrates that emotionally compelling frames with negative information are especially effective in changing people's minds. In the recent decades, in most referendums relating to the European Union (EU), emotional arguments highlighting the risks of an increase in immigration played a significant role in persuading a segment of the public to vote against the EU treaty at hand. The importance of frames is evident in today's world. The ways actors frame issues are shown to matter in the fields of elections, immigration policy, environmental politics, trade negotiations, global health, transparency reforms and more.
Although frames have been studied extensively in fields such as political psychology, social movements, international relations or political communication, the main focus of the existing research is their persuasiveness, in other words the factors that affect their persuasiveness. This project asks a neglected question: Where do frames come from in the first place? Why do actors choose the specific frames they use? The project thus aims to create a new, comparative research agenda that investigates when and how specific statements emerge in a political debate, by which kinds of actors they are proposed, and whether and how they diffuse to others. The project studies frames in five issue areas (trade, immigration, environment, global health, and transparency), with two carefully selected political debates in each of these issue areas.
The project takes four steps in order to achieve its aim. In a first step, it uses a new methodological tool called Discourse Network Analysis (studying the content of arguments together with the networks of actors), in order to trace the emergence
of specific frames in a number of selected political debates, the most important actors involved in the process, and the diffusion networks involved. In a second step, it conducts interviews with these key actors involved in framing in order to investigate the most important factors determining their framing choices and whether their respective institutions have an impact on these choices. In a third step, the project studies whether and how these patterns vary from one issue area to another (trade, immigration, environment, global health, and transparency). As such, the project offers a comparative and
comprehensive answer to a crucial but overlooked theoretical question, with an innovative and mixed-method methodology.
The fourth and final step of the project is to disseminate its findings to academic and non-academic communities, in order to raise awareness on the processes that produce frames in these five key issue areas in a globalising world, encourage policy and media elites to be better aware of how their framing processes and strategies impact the public debates on these issues, and to suggest innovative, inclusive and evidence-based communication strategies. Working in partnership with German Development Institute, one of the leading think tanks for global development policy worldwide, and a range of relevant governmental and non-governmental actors, the project integrates key beneficiaries at every stage of the research. These will be achieved through regular meetings, two policy events in Brussels and Geneva, various policy papers, and finally an analytical tool on our website that will visualise our findings so that policymakers, activists and the general public can easily understand them.
Although frames have been studied extensively in fields such as political psychology, social movements, international relations or political communication, the main focus of the existing research is their persuasiveness, in other words the factors that affect their persuasiveness. This project asks a neglected question: Where do frames come from in the first place? Why do actors choose the specific frames they use? The project thus aims to create a new, comparative research agenda that investigates when and how specific statements emerge in a political debate, by which kinds of actors they are proposed, and whether and how they diffuse to others. The project studies frames in five issue areas (trade, immigration, environment, global health, and transparency), with two carefully selected political debates in each of these issue areas.
The project takes four steps in order to achieve its aim. In a first step, it uses a new methodological tool called Discourse Network Analysis (studying the content of arguments together with the networks of actors), in order to trace the emergence
of specific frames in a number of selected political debates, the most important actors involved in the process, and the diffusion networks involved. In a second step, it conducts interviews with these key actors involved in framing in order to investigate the most important factors determining their framing choices and whether their respective institutions have an impact on these choices. In a third step, the project studies whether and how these patterns vary from one issue area to another (trade, immigration, environment, global health, and transparency). As such, the project offers a comparative and
comprehensive answer to a crucial but overlooked theoretical question, with an innovative and mixed-method methodology.
The fourth and final step of the project is to disseminate its findings to academic and non-academic communities, in order to raise awareness on the processes that produce frames in these five key issue areas in a globalising world, encourage policy and media elites to be better aware of how their framing processes and strategies impact the public debates on these issues, and to suggest innovative, inclusive and evidence-based communication strategies. Working in partnership with German Development Institute, one of the leading think tanks for global development policy worldwide, and a range of relevant governmental and non-governmental actors, the project integrates key beneficiaries at every stage of the research. These will be achieved through regular meetings, two policy events in Brussels and Geneva, various policy papers, and finally an analytical tool on our website that will visualise our findings so that policymakers, activists and the general public can easily understand them.
Publications
Atikcan, E O
(2025)
Frame Trajectories in Policy Debates: Placing the EU in Global Discourse Networks
in Journal of Common Market Studies
Durel L
(2023)
Timely climate proposals. Discourse networks and (dis)continuity in European policies
in Journal of European Public Policy
Holzscheiter, Anna
(2024)
International Rules on Health Data Sharing for a New Pandemic Agreement
Soares MW
(2025)
Biobanking as a contentious issue in global health governance diversification and contestation of policy frames in international biobanking debates.
in Social science & medicine (1982)
| Description | The project is still ongoing and it is in the data analysis and writing phase. So far, we have uncovered important global networks in policy making in fields such as environment, health, migration, Artificial Intelligence, gun control policy and energy security. |
| Exploitation Route | The project is still ongoing. I have already applied to a new grant application (ERC Consolidator grant) building from FRAMENET. I am still waiting to hear whether it has been successful. |
| Sectors | Communities and Social Services/Policy Energy Environment Healthcare Government Democracy and Justice Security and Diplomacy |
| Description | The project is still active and we have organised two policy events and we are in the process of writing policy briefs with our non-academic partner German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). We are also working on visualisation of our findings to be used by a general audience. |
| Sector | Communities and Social Services/Policy,Digital/Communication/Information Technologies (including Software),Energy,Environment,Healthcare,Government, Democracy and Justice,Security and Diplomacy |
| Impact Types | Policy & public services |
| Title | Improvement of the software (Discourse Network Analysis) |
| Description | Policy debates are often structured by competing advocacy coalitions around contested policy beliefs grounded in diverging moral concepts. Discourse network analysis has been used to study such polarized policy debates. However, some policy beliefs actors hold are more polarizing or structure-inducing than others. A. It is important to identify such beliefs, both from a normative perspective to facilitate consensus building among actors and their coalitions and from an analytic perspective to improve the homogeneity of the set of policy beliefs that are coded in the research process. In our project, we suggest methods for tracing the relative contribution of each policy belief or set of policy beliefs to structuring a policy debate. We iteratively subdivide the set of coded policy beliefs into an in-set and an out-set (with at least one belief), measure the difference in modularity and the spectral distance between the full discourse network and the discourse network without the out-set as a fitness score of the out-set, penalize the out-set for size, and use combinatorial optimization to find the optimal set of policy beliefs that are immune to structuring the policy debate into camps by maximally deviating from the structure imposed by the remaining policy beliefs. We apply this method to several empirical policy debates to identify the most and least polarizing policy beliefs and make recommendations for promoting dialogue and improving case-based discourse network analysis by optimizing the codebook and analysis. This contribution speaks to the problem of measuring the centrality of policy beliefs in discourse networks, the relative importance of policy beliefs in a given discourse, and the sources of polarization in policy debates. |
| Type Of Material | Improvements to research infrastructure |
| Year Produced | 2022 |
| Provided To Others? | Yes |
| Impact | It is very early in the project. At the moment, we are training 6 early career scholars and roughly 10 undergraduate and postgraduate researchers on this new methodological approach. |
| Title | FRAMENET dataset |
| Description | Collecting and coding more than 30000 press articles from press agencies, we identify 500 distinct ways to perceive policy problems and express solutions, used by more than 400 actors over a period of 20 years (2001-2021). This coding covers five issue areas: Trade, Immigration, Environment, Global health, and Transparency |
| Type Of Material | Database/Collection of data |
| Year Produced | 2022 |
| Provided To Others? | No |
| Impact | Our publications will advance the interdisciplinary field of frame analysis both theoretically and methodologically. Our theoretical pieces will focus on the emergence of specific frames in the selected political debates in the issue areas of trade, immigration, environment, global health, and transparency (using content and network analysis); the most important factors determining the actors' framing choices and whether the institutional context in which they communicate their arguments has an impact on these choices (using interviews); and finally whether and how these patterns vary from one issue area to another in a comparative framework. Our methodological pieces will focus on the methodological advancement of the Discourse Network Analysis method, which is a new and promising tool for analysing actors and networks in policy debates based on text data. Our impact plan culminates in the development of a user-friendly analytical tool to enable international policymakers, lobbyists, activists, and the public to better understand and identify the production processes that influence key debates in today's global politics (case studies focus on trade, immigration, environment, health, and transparency), revealing the power structures behind frames, the mechanisms of post-truth politics, and facilitating evidence-based and inclusive responses to and communication strategies around such concerns. |
| Description | German Development Institute |
| Organisation | German Development Institute |
| Country | Germany |
| Sector | Public |
| PI Contribution | We have secured the partnership of the German Development Institute (DIE), a leading think tank for global development policy worldwide (42,000 Euros in-kind contribution). The three PIs will co-author at least three policy papers with DIE experts in trade, immigration and the environment (Brandi, Martin-Shields, Richerzagen). DIE will also host our two policy events, in Brussels in Year 2 and in Geneva in Year 3, to which we will invite up to 50 international policymakers, elected officials, activists, media outlets, and the public. DIE will send out invitations via their contact list (38.000 contacts including decisionmakers and NGOs). |
| Collaborator Contribution | DIE has a highly respected reputation for its evidence-based policy advice and its expertise in innovative knowledge diffusion via social media tools, from which the partnership will enable us to benefit. Its network includes the European Commission, G20, as well as international policy networks in many emerging economies, providing a worldwide platform to disseminate our findings. We will be in touch with them monthly throughout the project. Also, we will jointly develop an analytical tool which will be hosted on our project website. The tool will involve data visualisation, and allow users to enter specific keywords to track the emergence and diffusion of frames, across our case study areas, to better understand these complex processes and shape their policy and communication strategies accordingly. We will follow up with our stakeholders regularly and monitor citations in their publications to track the impact our research is having on their activities. Drawing on our stakeholder networks and the expertise within our university impact and communications offices, we will produce press releases and policy briefs to disseminate our key project findings to groups with whom we had not already directly engaged, thus maximising our impact potential. |
| Impact | It is very early in the project. |
| Start Year | 2021 |
| Description | Data visualisation for general public -- biobanking |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | This is a data visualisation video on our Biobanking case. Biobanking, which describes the collection, storage and sharing of human biological samples and data, has become essential to medical research. Biobanks are central to various types of scientific work, including cancer research, vaccine development and genetic studies. As the field of biobanking grows, so do various ethical, legal and political challenges. Anna Holzscheiter and Maria Weickardt Soares at TU Dresden have extensively analysed these complexities, focusing on how international organisations address contentious issues surrounding biobanking. In a recent paper, they explore how debates about biobanking have unfolded within international organisations such as the EU, the World Health Organization and UNESCO. While these organisations recognise the value of biobanking for global health, they have struggled to establish cohesive regulations to govern it. Their analysis highlights a lack of global standards, which leaves biobanking practices vulnerable to exploitation, particularly when ethical oversight is unequal between different countries and regions. A key focus of the work by Holzscheiter and Weickardt Soares is how human rights concerns have politicised debates about biobanking. They map how these discussions have evolved from the mid-1990s, when biobanking was mainly viewed through the lens of medical research to the present day, where privacy, consent, and equitable access dominate the conversation. Human rights-based approaches often conflict with the demands of scientific progress and commercial interests, leading to tensions that shape international policymaking in this field. Holzscheiter and Weickardt Soares also delve into the power imbalances that characterise biobanking governance. Biobanks have historically been dominated by actors in Europe and North America, with limited input from the Global South. Their paper amplifies the voices of marginalised regions, highlighting how actors in the Global South are demanding ethical practices, and recognition of their contributions to biobanking. For example, Holzscheiter and Weickardt Soares highlight the growing resistance to 'biocolonialism', where resources are extracted from less-developed regions without equitable returns. They document how these demands have begun to challenge the dominance of wealthier nations in setting the agenda for biobanking governance in recent years. The team's use of discourse-network analysis enables them to track the emergence of policy frames around biobanking. By analysing decades of international debates, they shed light on the fragmentation and diversification of biobanking policies, offering a comprehensive view of how this field has become a politically charged domain. Their paper not only identifies the ethical and legal gaps in current practices, but also provides a roadmap for creating equitable policies. By advocating for stronger international cooperation and a commitment to human rights, their work lays the groundwork for a biobanking system that balances innovation with justice and accountability. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2025 |
| URL | https://scitube.io/balancing-ethics-and-innovation-in-biobanking/ |
| Description | Data visualisation for general public -- climate change |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | This is a data visualisation video on our climate change case. Climate change has become a topic of public discussion, no longer confined to scientists and politicians. Various stakeholders, including environmental NGOs and industry representatives, hold different perspectives on how to address climate change. This web of actors and ideas in a given political debate, combined with their interactions, is called a discursive field. Discursive fields influence our thinking and determine whether certain ideas gain political traction. They can enable or constrain the ability of political institutions to adopt new policies. As agreeing on efficient climate change policies becomes increasingly urgent, it is vital that we consider how discursive fields impact climate change policy. In their recent research, Dr Laurie Durel and Laure Gosselin compared two policy proposals of the European Green Deal - a strategy to transform the European economy and strengthen sustainable development. The first is the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which deals with the carbon footprint of some products coming into Europe. The second is the reform for a greener Common Agricultural Policy, which aims to make farming in Europe more environmentally friendly. They analysed the discourse around these policies, and how they have changed over time. In doing so, they aimed to grasp the factors enabling substantial policy change. They investigated how existing conversations about climate change shape new policies. Durel and Gosselin found that policy change is evident in the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism policy, the world's first broadly applied carbon import fee. In contrast, continuity prevails in the Common Agricultural Policy, which builds on existing mechanisms and fails to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the sector. They offered explanations for this difference. They identified two key elements that favour policy change: 1: Ensuring that policies align with pre-existing ideas in policy debates and reflect stakeholders' concerns. 2: The intervention of political actors who can help bridge various perspectives or interests. The European Commission introduced the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism as a balanced policy that would take strong action on climate change, while addressing concerns about competitiveness. As the proposal didn't clash with the main conversations around climate change, it brought together groups previously divided on climate issues to support the policy. In contrast, when the discursive field is highly polarised, policymakers struggle to reconcile conflicting views on how to define the problem, resulting in climate policies that are unlikely to stray far from the status quo. The conversations about the Common Agricultural Policy exacerbated existing tensions around the responsibility of the agricultural sector in climate mitigation, making it difficult to bridge gaps between different European actors. This research reminds us that simply introducing an innovative policy is not enough. Policymakers must be attuned to the broader context, the various stakeholders involved, and the ideas structuring a debate. These conversations shape the trajectory of policy debates and, ultimately, the likelihood of policy change. If the EU is to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, listening to the concerns voiced by those directly affected by policy is essential. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2024 |
| URL | https://scitube.io/dr-laurie-durel-laure-gosselin-how-conversations-shape-the-effectiveness-of-new-c... |
| Description | Data visualisation for general public -- facial recognition |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | This is a data visualisation video based on our Facial Recognition case. Facial recognition technology has become increasingly common in our daily lives. However, its use raises questions about privacy, security, and human rights. Dr Kerem Öge at the University of Warwick and Manuel Quintin at Université Laval examine how public discussions about facial recognition technology have changed over time in Europe and the United States. They explore how the shifts in narrative have shaped policy. The researchers analysed thousands of statements about facial recognition from various sources between 2000 and 2022. They found that early discussions mostly focused on facial recognition as a security tool. After the 9/11 attacks in the USA, the technology was promoted as a way to keep the public safe and fight terrorism. Although civil rights groups raised concerns, security considerations overshadowed them. However, as facial recognition became more widespread, the discourse began to change. Urgent security concerns gave way to questions about privacy. By the 2010s, more people were questioning whether this technology was being used responsibly and ethically. Öge and Quintin found that Europe and the US had similar overall trends in their facial recognition debates, but with some key differences. In Europe, concerns about transparency and regulation emerged earlier than in the US. This may help explain why Europe has been quicker to implement regulations such as GDPR. In the US, tech companies played a more central role in the debate. Initially, they promoted the benefits of the technology, but in recent years, some major companies have become more cautious. For example, IBM, Microsoft and Amazon have limited or stopped selling facial recognition to police forces as this practice became ethically untenable. The researchers also noticed that, as the debate over the technology evolved, different groups began to use similar language. To visualise this, the researchers used a method called Discourse Network Analysis. They created visual maps of the debate, showing how different actors are connected based on their statements about facial recognition. In these visualisations, each actor is represented by a dot, and lines between them show when actors use similar arguments. Early network visualisations showed two main clusters: a large group of government agencies and businesses promoting facial recognition for security, and a smaller group of NGOs raising concerns. Over time, these networks became more complex. By 2020, the visualisations revealed a more diverse debate, with some tech companies joining civil rights groups in expressing caution. This 'harmonisation' has made it easier for people with different viewpoints to engage in meaningful dialogue. The changing nature of the facial recognition debate has had real-world impacts on policy. For example, the researchers suggest that the growing focus on ethics and transparency in Europe has contributed to the development of EU proposals to regulate AI. Öge and Quintin's study shows how public discussions about new technologies can evolve over time and influence policy decisions. By understanding these patterns, we can better navigate the complex relationship between technological innovation, public opinion, and regulation. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2025 |
| URL | https://scitube.io/dr-kerem-oge-manuel-quintin-the-changing-discourse-on-facial-recognition-technolo... |
| Description | Policy event in Brussels |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | The Externalisation of Migration: Perspectives of the Global North and South This science-policy event explores the evolving phenomenon of migration externalisation in Europe and beyond, focusing on the types of policies, the political coalitions shaping them, and the impact of migration 'crises'. Based on discourse network analysis of over 7,500 statements, media content analysis, and interviews from the FRAMENET project and research in the Gambia, we examine how the EU, state and non-state actors and international organisations from the Global North and South interact to drive or contest externalisation strategies. Date & Time: 17 February, 11 am to 1 pm Location: Room Rome and Lisbon, Brussels School of Governance (BsoG), Plienlaan 5, 1050, Brussels Speakers: Ozlem Atikcan (University of Warwick) Omar N. Cham (BsoG, VUB) Susan Ekoh (German Institute of Development and Sustainability, IDOS) Josephine Liebl (Head of Advocacy, European Council on Refugees and Exiles, ECRE) |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2025 |
| Description | Policy event online |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | This was an online policy event organised by our non-academic partner IDOS, focusing on the health dimension of FRAMENET project (e.g. WHO pandemic treaty). |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2024 |
