Basically, critical discourse analysis. Try Hajer. And maybe critical realism.

Though i am a beginner in the area but i understand that framing and discourse analysis has close resemblance. Framing to me, in other words is contextualistion in view of the shared assumptions occur at certain social place where the discourse occurs. This social setting or space may be micro as well as macro; e.g. interaction between employer and his employee in an institution etc. So detecting the frame becomes part of discourse analysis. you cannot ignore framing or context in the discourse analysis as it is the only thing which uncovers the real meaning exists in the discourse; by real meaning i mean its ideological implication or motivation.

An excuse by respond not soon. "I have a short one of work as we say in Mexico". I believe that as all the methodological theoretical foci exist limitations. Some philosophers think that to analyze the speech by their referencialidad is reductionistic, to appeal to the context in which the speech is emitted does not say us the real meaning of the processes, the motivations. ...Analizar the speech of the social movements carries us again to locate a framework. In final the analysis of the speech will permit to identify transformations in the use of the language, key that carry us to the reconstruction of the reality,. And I believe that the analysis of the speech is only a way to undertake the theme of the social movements that requires for its study the sociological and anthropological look. A hug Philipp.

i think that discourse analysis is a tool to frame analysis. The problem is the perspective of discourse analysis we consider. Think the discourse considerated just only like linguistical phenomena, does not bring possibilities to the analysis. The categories of frame analysis may be usefull to analyze the discourse how an subjetive construction of the actors experience, and their "footprints". I think that the source we have indicate the perspective too. Is not the same work with a corpus of interviews or the "footprints" of events through accesible newspapers, for example. Sorry for my awfull english. Regards from Buenos Aires.

Dear Phillip:

I am a sociolinguist who learned CDA after graduate school. In my view frame analysis is used by journalists and communication scholars, and it is a type of discourse analysis. The notion of “frame” has been for a range of notions. The best-known call for unifying the field is Robert Entman’s brief article, (1993) in which he offers the political communication process called “framing” as the center of a research paradigm to aspire to become a “master discipline” (51). He notes that “nowhere is there a general statement of framing theory that shows exactly how frames are embedded within and make themselves manifest in a text, or how framing influences thinking” (51). He sets out as his goal to “identify and make explicit common tendencies among the various use of the terms…frame, framing, and framework…and to suggest a more precise and universal understanding of them” (52). His ensuing words have been quoted widely:

“Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and / or treatment recommendation for the item described” (52 italics in original).

I concur with Entman's depiction. However, he does not define framing so much as describe it. This is my criticism of frame analysis, that it remains a descriptive enterprise rather than attempting to “explain” the fundamental communicative source of the power of discourse frames.

As you see, discourse analysis covers the same ground, but it is associated with linguistic and semiotic disciplines. See Gee’s recent handbook. The measure of solid linguistic work is explanatory, rather than descriptive analyses.

In my view the most prominent branch of DA is critical discourse analysis, which means it is a normative endeavor. However, CDA is not a unified field. Wodak does work much differently than Fairclough, and my own work differs from both, since I base my analyses on cognitive scientific principals.

Every decade or so, my college's administration gets attracted to a new (or new to it) educational fad, fetish or fantasy. In the 2010s, it seems to be "core literacies."

I know Dorothy Smith and admire some of the work she has done on organizational ethnologies, but I'd like to know about any other (relatively) simple (I'm new to this) introduction to "discourse analysis" that would allow for the interrogation/penetration of "big new ideas" - particularly as they relate to the exercise of bureaucratic power and control.

As well, any clever or cunning critiques of "core literacies" themselves would be helpful.

And, finally, critical analyses of such projects as "literacy across the curriculum" which can be used well to include schools of Business, Engineering, Health Sciences, etc., to get "on board" with promoting written and oral communications skills, or badly to diminish the importance of English and Liberal Arts programs which can be marginalized since, with regard to everything from English composition to cultural awareness, it becomes possible for vocational vandals and professional philistines to say "We don't need them; we already do it!"

Greetings, Phillip--

Investigating "collective" discourses is always somewhat challenging. "Frame" analysis has been used in sociology for quite some time. See:

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology, 611-639.

Snow, D. A., Rochford Jr, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American sociological review, 464-481.

Johnston, H. (1995). A methodology for frame analysis: From discourse to cognitive schemata. Social movements and culture, 4, 2l7-246.

However, from a discursive perspective, frame analyses tend to rely heavily on a cognitive paradigm in which "where" the frames "are" is primarily analyst-driven and imposed.

In Europe, Critical Discourse Analysis has very successfully used various types of texts, including newspaper articles, opinion columns, etc., to investigate inequality (in general) and racism (in particular). I'm thinking of the work of Ruth Wodak, Tuen van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Jan Blommaert, etc., all of which are searchable on Google Scholar.

To answer your question more concretely, I think it's also important to consider the type of data you have and what sphere of "social movement" you have in mind. Specifically, is the "social movement" more overt (Falun Dafa outside of China, xenophobia in Northern Europe) or more covert (biomedical skepticism of complementary or alternative medicine, etc.). Additionally, I think the selection of analytic tools also depend on the "kind" of discourse you have to analyze.

Perhaps I've just muddied the waters. Good luck!

Marc Steinberg has written specifically about what discourse analysis can contribute to the study of frames in social movements. His work might be useful to you. See:

- Steinberg, M. W. (1999). The Talk and Back Talk of Collective Action: A Dialogic Analysis of Repertoires of Discourse among Nineteenth-Century English Cotton Spinners 1. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 736-780.

- Steinberg, M. W. (1998). Tilting the frame: Considerations on collective action framing from a discursive turn. Theory and Society, 27(6), 845-872.

I'd agree with Marina - framing and DA aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. But it depends what your unit of analysis is going to be, whether you're looking at agenda setting (what stories we're talking about) attribute agenda setting (what elements of those stories we're talking about), or framing (the way those elements are presented). This is my typology, not an agreed one, as I"m sure you've already realised, it's a very fragmented field, and different scholars (particularly in different fields) mean different things by 'framing'.

Entman's article is an excellent place to start (1993: Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House frame post 9/11) http://ipac.kacst.edu.sa/eDoc/2006/157352_1.pdf on framing, as is Van Gorp (2007) - The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back In. Bayshan and Hallahan (2004) have a great overview of framing and methodology that might help you to select what fits for your work.

I would question let's say the public statements, political programs, etc. - why, who, where, when ... - in order to understand are there any answers and how to interpret them? In many cases it's enough. But for more complicated cases it's possible to transform the text into a sequence of wordings of actions structured by the mentioned questions in order to understand the meanings of the actions embedded in the text, i.e. possible actions. The method isn't widely known and came from textviruslab.com from St. Petersburg, Russia.