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