An Example of Naming & Framing
The objective of naming problems in the terms people use and of framing issues to highlight the tensions that have to be worked through is to prompt genuine deliberation rather than a general discussion or debate.
For example, take the topic of "affordable health care."
When framing this issue, the issue being presented (affordable health care) should be put forward as a question of what should be done, not how to do something. The reason is to make clear that the issue is normative, not just technical.
The title for the issue to be framed (say, affordable health care) should reflect what is valuable to people and what is at stake: "What Should We Do to Combat Rising Medical Costs That Would Not Compromise Good Health Care" would be a good title for this issue because it states a desire to do something about the cost of medical care, and also reflects that people value the goal of maintaining the quality of health care that they count on. The title also anticipates tensions that result from having more than one objective. But the title doesn’t just point to a general topic (health care) because that would be too broad for decision-making. And it doesn’t single out a particular outcome that some would advocate, such as limiting malpractice awards, because that would preclude genuine deliberation.
To continue with the naming and framing process, when a "concerns" exercise (a brainstorming that elicits what people are worried about, regarding the topic of health care) is conducted in the early stages of the process, three concerns are often mentioned about the impact of rising health care costs and the effect on families:
- They don't want to be wiped out financially by catastrophic illness or accident,
- They don't want to be ripped off by profiteers, and
- They are concerned about having insurance for everyone.
These concerns can become the basis for the three options to be considered - the "approaches" for the frame. Each option is presented in a way such that people might be able to see themselves or someone they know in it. After the concerns exercise, participants in the naming and framing process should be asked to consider some actions that might follow logically from addressing each concern. As participants list action steps, it will become clear to them that there are numerous actors: citizens, government, and businesses. The advantage of each course of action is then described and is followed by a brief reference to some possible disadvantages. The disadvantages bring tensions to the surface by anticipating unpleasant but necessary tradeoffs.
An interesting peripheral outcome of the naming and framing process (aside from constructing a "placemat" or structure that can be used to shape a formal and public deliberative forum) is that it often reminds people that what should happen in deliberative decision making follows the pattern in the best of everyday decision making. In personal "choice work," people may not refer to “concerns,” but it isn’t difficult to hear a conversation along these lines: “If that bothers you so much, what do you think should be done?” And once that question is answered and the possible actions are on the table, someone usually brings up a potential disadvantage. “But if we did what you are suggesting, wouldn’t it harm our ______?” (They fill in the blank.) That is essentially what this framework does; it follows the pattern of sound decision making.
While the advantages and disadvantages of each course of action for something most all people hold dear are spelled out in the naming and framing process, the framing doesn’t encourage a debate over philosophic values or beliefs but rather the fair weighing of possible political actions.
Finally, the framework does not stop people from adding options or renaming issues. Still, it provides enough structure to direct the conversation out of predictable and often partisan or ideological channels.