Talk:Framing (communication theory)

Example?

Another example, but I'm too tired to be sure that I can write about it without bias:

• homophobic, homophobia - implying that all criticism of homosexuality is motivated by phobias: irrational and hostile - curtailing any possibility of principled or compassionate opposition to boy/boy or girl/girl sexual relations.

Let's not add this example to the article until it's vetted for bias. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Not sure if I follow where you're going with this Ed. To be sure, both terms have been used as Rhetorical devices by both sides. However, it's my understanding that both terms are considered to be less rhetorical than their more divisive cousins: "anti-gay", "pro-marriage" & "pro-family". The latter two being code words.--ghost 30 June 2005 02:33 (UTC)

Is it 'irrational and hostile' or 'irrational or hostile'? If it means the latter, then I would say it could be used. However, from this site: 'The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable desire to avoid the feared subject,' leads me to believe that the first point made in this discussion is true, and people will be able to draw whatever bias they wish from it, though little, if any, bias is identifiable in what has in fact been written.

I googled: "compassionate opposition" same-sex, and I found that the phrase itself is an attempt at framing the homosexuality argument. The author of one short paper describes himself as in the compassionate-opposition camp but suggests that the stance of tolerance, "basically an attempt to stay neutral, ... is no longer tenable."[1] I found another reference which likewise uses "compassionate opposition" in a framing sense. I would remind you of the word "compassionate conservative" which is a framing use of the word "compassionate". [2] -- [email protected]

Framing in psychology

There seems to be a new page on Framing (psychology). How can these best be combined?

Maybe just merge into this page, and on the disambiguation page Framing rewrite current entry to read: "Framing (communication theory) includes social science meanings: sociology, psychology, media."--Cberlet 17:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe content from this page and Framing (psychology) could both be merged into something like Framing (social science theory) or maybe just Framing (social theory). On the new page it should talk about how framing relates to the various social science disciplines.--Antistatist 04:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I added merge proposal templates to the two pages. Since the discussion has already started here, I suggest to continue it here; I added a link to here on the other talk page. Joriki 08:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's also an overlapping article on loaded language, which doesn't mention either of the framing articles. Perhaps this should be merged, too? Joriki 06:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, loaded language definitely should not be combined - as it is now written it deserves to be on its own. However, the articles "framing effects (economics)" could and should be combined with the psychology and communication articles on the exact same phenomenon. Also, if someone decides to merge, I would suggest "Framing Effects" as the title. This wouldn't require disambiguation and is a better title anyway. My $.02. When does a merge take place, btw? Is there a vote?

Move

I think this should be moved to a more general Framing (sociology).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This should not be moved into psychology -- it should be further developed as a framing (sociology).

Framing may represent the point where psychological and social processes come together. Neither should have exclusive purview.

[reworded] I disagree with the move. Media communication is a profession and part of the communication theory field. -- Steve Hart 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Other Categories

Question framing in my opinion should be maintained as separate from Framing (Psychology). Right now, "Question Framing" links to this communication theory article, but the article makes no mention of question framing itself. Question framing is a very important topic in Human Resource/Interviewing practice as well as practice in conducting market, academic, and opinion related research. Chapium 15:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge

I don't think these two should be merged. The two aspects (pshycology/sociology and journalistic) are very distinct and should stay that way. They are in two different frames.  :)

I agree, it would be absurd to merge them without a clear distinction in the article, thus they may as well be seperate pages. NO MERGE. -sjs

While Goffman has a leg in both camps (pun intended), I think these articles should remain seperate, and reference each other.--Cberlet 04:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the 2 should not be merged and should merely reference one another. Framing can be applied in many arenas, and it's helpful to show the difference when applied differently. 76.21.82.194 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC) snb

These should not be merged. They have totally different histories, literature, and scholars supporting them.

They're super different topics and meanings. This page deals with rhetoric... don't merge.