Abstract：When the framing research and communication disciplines crossed, a hidden phenomenon of research framing occurs, which is difficult to detect. In response to the “traveling theory” pioneered by Said, this paper formulates the “origin” involving three stages from the “pan” framing concept （1955-1977）, “narrow” media framing effects （1978-1999）, to the “pan” off-online media coverage frames (2000-), throughout which to enrich the schema of “a distance traversed”, “a set of conditions for acceptance or rejections”, and “a finally transformed (incorporated) idea”, as well as aims at constructing a sharp model for promoting conventional theories to transgressive ones based on the perspectives of journals, readers, and times to frame its trans-field travel.It has been four decades since the Journal of Communication (JoC) launched the special issue series “Ferment in the Field” in 1983. Three decades ago, the second issue organized and published the first global meta-theory media framing research article, “Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm” (“Framing”) (Entman, 1993), which establishes the “Four functions/positions” media frame theory 1.0 and discovers the logical starting milestone of meta-theory for framing research.To shed light on a theoretical avenue at the historical moment, this paper focuses on both close text reading and comprehensive literature inquiry methodology, as well as attempts to revisit the article “Framing” and JoC. By charting its much-awaited chronology, the paper indicates that it is the research’s perspective that frames the research question, perspective depth and beyond. Moreover, the publishing platform can affect the journal papers deeply with a reframed effect via readers’ reading comprehension.Very few studies have applied the proper frame of “Framing”, on the contrary, mostly involving misunderstandings. Different from the pessimistic reader frames, such as “Framing is dead” and “paradigm is fractured”, the mainstream frame of the article “Framing” is like a positive “discipline revitalization principle”. The term “fractured” referred to in the article “Framing” is a general crisis of the unknown state of all social sciences, especially communication studies. To provide the corresponding solution, it is strongly recommended to polish the framing theory into a “master theory”, by which the communication field can be incorporated into a “master discipline”. However, due to the lack of abstracts in the article “Framing” and loss of the leading title for all the special issue series from JoC, dyslexia occurs, in which the criticism object is misread from the communication discipline into the framing theory.Besides, the “discipline revitalization principle” in the article “Framing” is framed by JoC. The articulation “fractured paradigm” between the lines is indeed a response to the ghost of “Berelson’s lament” since 1959, which argues that the state of communication is withering away under the verge of dissolution for many years. Such matters as its own “fractured” propositions are concerned by the totally four special issue series “Ferment in the Field” since 1983, including the lack of a universal communication paradigm, unwillingness of the communication scholarship to influence the practice field, lack of the core knowledge, fracture of the research objects and methods. Thus, institutional and scholarly legitimacy remains a chimera in this field.From previous literature, especially the Chinese framing research, this paper learned: To research is to frame by framing the specific academic field, and the researchers ought to advance with the local frame and times frame. At the communication community in China, the first media framing research work proposed Media Frame Theory 2.0, extending the connotation of the frame to the “high-middle-low” three-level structure by Kuojen Tsang in 1999. Then, the initial recognition of the “fractured paradigm” is due to the introduction of the inaugural issue of Journal ofCommunication & Society by Zhongdang Pan in 2006. Next, the rise of the Asian and especially the Chinese communication community was marked by Joseph Man Chan as the first elected Chinese Fellow in 2014, and Ang Peng Hwa as the first Asian to be elected President of the International Communication Association for 2016/17. Last but not the least, Jack Linchuan Qiu, has become the first Chinese Associate Editor of JoC since its inception after appointment as the co-editor of the fourth special issue “Ferments in the Fields” (2018), and represented JoC to re-invite Entman to think over the past, present and future of the framing theory in the era of digital technology.In the current global anti-epidemic times, the three times revision of the framing interaction “cascading model” (Entman, 2004, 2012; Entman & Usher, 2018) has been constructed before Covid-19, too “Americanized” to adapt to the Chinese context. Hence, we needs to go beyond Entman and combine the 1.0 and 2.0 version theoretical construction to propose a newly Media Framing Theory 3.0 in an off-online media coverage framework field based on the three general elements, including “text frame”, “interpersonal vs. human-machine interacting frame” and “Entman’s four positions media frame 1.0”. As a result, in the media convergence vein, the framing function of communicator and news distribution has achieved abundantly explanatory information and promotes the “Ferment in the Field” of the framing research to match the “Ferment in the World” of times, thus inevitably leading to the organic cycle of the framing theory as a classical paradigm of a “traveling theory”.
王彦. 框架研究的框架化[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2022, 52(11): 129-146.
Wang Yan. To Frame the Framing Research:Three-decade “Fractured Paradigm” and Four-decade “Ferment in the Field”. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(11): 129-146.
1 Said E. W.， “Traveling theory，” in Edward W. S. （ed.）， The World， the Text， and the Critic， Cambridge： Harvard University Press， 1983， pp. 226-247. 2 Said E. W.， “Traveling theory reconsidered，” in Edward W. S. （ed.）， Reflection on Exile and Other Essays， Cambridge： Harvard University Press， 2000， pp. 436-452. 3 翁时秀： 《基于理论旅行视角的人文地理学中想象地理研究反思》，《地理》2018年第2期，第261-275页。 4 倪炎元： 《再现的政治：台湾报纸媒体对“他者”建构的论述分析》，台北：韦伯文化出版社，2003年。 5 陈怀林： 《媒体框架分析法的变化趋向》，见洪浚浩编：《传播学新趋势》，北京：清华大学出版社，2014年，第929-952页。 6 臧国仁： 《新闻媒体与消息来源——媒介框架与真实建构之论述》，台北：三民出版社，1999年。 7 Lippmann W.， Public Opinion， New York： Hartcour Brace Press， 1922. 8 Hovland C. I.， Janis. I. L. & Kelley H. H.， Communication and Persuasion： Psychological Studies of Opinion Change， New Haven： Yale University Press， 1953. 9 Bateson G.， “A theory of play and fantasy，” Psychiatric Research Reports， No. 2 （1955）， pp. 39-51. 10 Entman R. M.， “Framing： toward clarification of a fractured paradigm，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 43， No. 4 （1993）， pp. 51-58. 11 王彦： 《沉默的框架：框架理论六十年的时间脉络与空间想象》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2017年第6期，第197-215页。 12 杜涛： 《框中世界：媒介框架理论的起源、争议与发展》，北京：知识产权出版社，2014年。 13 Entman R. M.， “Framing U.S. coverage of international news： contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 41， No. 4 （1991）， pp. 6-27. 14 Entman R. M.， “Framing bias： media in the distribution of power，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 57， No. 1 （1991）， pp. 163-173. 15 Entman R. M. & Usher N.， “Framing in a fractured democracy： impacts of digital technology on ideology， power and cascading network activation，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 68， No. 2 （2018）， pp. 298-308. 16 Matthes J.， “What’s in a frame？ a content analysis of media framing studies in the world’s leading communication journals， 1990-2005，” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly， Vol. 86， No. 2 （2009）， pp. 349-367. 17 张梅： 《分裂的图景：住宅议题新闻的框架研究》，桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2015年。 18 Goffman E.， Frame Analysis： An Essay on the Organization of Experience， Cambridge： Harvard University Press， 1974. 19 Gamson W. A.， “News as framing： comments on graber，” American Behavioral Scientist， Vol. 33， No. 2 （1989）， pp. 157-161. 20 Gamson W. A.， “The political culture of Arab-Israeli conflict，” Conflict Management and Peace Science， Vol. 5， No. 2 （1981）， pp. 79-94. 21 Gitlin T.， The Whole World Is Watching： Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left， Berkeley： The University of California Press， 1980. 22 潘忠党： 《架构分析：一个亟需理论澄清的领域》，《传播与社会学刊》2006年第1期，第17-46页。 23 Iyengar S.， Is Anyone Responsible？ How Television Frames Political Issues， Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 1991. 24 Gamson W. A.， Talking Politics， New York： Cambridge University Press， 1992. 25 陈阳： 《框架分析：一个亟待澄清的理论概念》，《国际新闻界》2007年第4期，第19-23页。 26 刘强： 《框架理论：概念、源流与方法探析——兼论我国框架理论研究的阙失》，《中国出版》2015年第8期，第19-24页。 27 黄冠雄： 《ICA和AEJMC会议焦点透视和趋势展望》，《潮》2014年第1期，第4-11页。 28 D’Angelo P.， Lule J. & Neuman W. R. et al.， “Beyond framing： a forum for framing researchers，” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly， Vol. 96， No. 1 （2019）， pp. 12-30. 29 李金铨： 《传播纵横：历史脉络与全球视野》，北京：社会科学文献出版社，2019年。 30 Scheufele D. A. & Iyengar S.， “The state of framing research： a call for new directions，” in Kenski K. & Jamieson K. H. （eds.）， The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication Theories， New York： Oxford University Press， 2012， pp. 1-26. 31 Druckman J. N.， “The implications of framing effects for citizen competence，” Political Behavior， Vol. 23， No. 3 （2001）， pp. 225-256. 32 Entman R. M.， Matthes J. & Pellicano L.， “Nature， sources， and effects of news framing，” in Wahl-Jorgensen K. & Hanitzsch T. （eds.）， The Handbook of Journalism Studies， New York： Routledge Press， 2009， pp. 175-190. 33 Scheufele D. A.， “Framing as a theory of media effects，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 49， No. 1 （1999）， pp. 103-122. 34 D’Angelo P.， “News framing as a multi-paradigmatic research program： a response to Entman，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 52， No. 2 （2002）， pp. 870-888. 35 Gerbner G.， “Introduction，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 33， No. 3 （1983）， pp. 4-5. 36 Levy M. & Gurevitch M.， “Special issue—the disciplinary status of communication，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 43， No. 3 （1993）， pp. 4. 37 Levy M.， “Editor’s note，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 43， No. 4 （1993）， p. 4. 38 Pfau M.， “Epistemological and disciplinary intersections，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 58， No. 4 （2008）， pp. 597-602. 39 Fuchs C. & Qiu J. L.， “Ferments in the field： introductory reflections on the past， present and future of communication studies，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 68， No. 2 （2018）， pp. 219-232. 40 邱林川： 《多元、对话与有机的传播研究：基于2018年JoC新酵母专刊的反思》，《国际新闻界》2018年第2期，第53-61页。 41 Berelson B.， “The state of communication research，” Public Opinion Quarterly， Vol. 23， No. 1 （1959）， pp. 1-6. 42 Berger C. R.， “Communication theories and other curios，” Communications Monographs， Vol. 58， No. 1 （1991）， pp. 101-113. 43 Schramm W.， “The unique perspective of communication： a retrospective view，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 33， No. 3 （1983）， pp. 6-17. 44 Beniger J. R.， “Communication—embrace the subject， not the field，” Journal of Communication， Vol. 43， No. 3 （1993）， pp. 18-25. 45 喻国明： 《传播学何以成为热门学科》，《解放日报》2014年2月13日，第11版。 46 朱鸿军、苗伟山、孙萍： 《学科建制下的规范化：新中国新闻与传播学方法研究70年（1949—2019）》，《新闻与传播研究》2019年第10期，第21-35，126-127页。 47 Entman R. M.， Projections of Power： Framing News， Public Opinion， and U.S. Foreign Policy， Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 2004. 48 Entman R. M.， Scandal and Silence： Media Responses to Presidential Misconduct， New York： Polity Press， 2012. 49 Craig R. T.， “Communication theory as a field，” Communication Theory， Vol. 9， No. 2 （1999）， pp. 119-161.
2022, Vol. 52 
