Definition:

Framing is the thought process people use to define a situation and decide how they are going to deal with it. Reframing is doing this over again in a different way – for example, deciding a conflict can be approached in a positive (or "win-win") way, rather than a negative (or "win-lose") way.

Users:

Anyone in a conflict situation.

Description:

Conflict scholars use the term "framing" to mean the process of describing and interpreting an event. The way one frames a conflict is based on what has happened to that person (or group of people) in the past, what values are important to them, and whether they see the situation as a threat or a potential benefit. All of one's knowledge and life experiences serve as a background upon which any new event is interpreted. This background forms part of one's "frame."

Examples:

For example, many people in the United States framed the attack on the World Trade Centers as terrorism, and/or an act of war, especially after President Bush described the event in that way. Others, however, framed the attacks as a criminal act, not a military act, suggesting that the response should be undertaken by law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, not by the military. Still others framed the attacks as "freedom fighting," or the "struggle of an oppressed people to be heard."

Another example is an community dispute over the construction of a new homeless shelter. Some people might see a shelter as being an advantage to the community, and advocate putting it downtown, believing that it would be most accessible to the homeless in that location. Others, however, might see it as a blight on the neighborhood, and want to push it as far out of town as possible. Such disputes are often best approached by getting both sides to sit down together, to air their issues and concerns, and to develop a new view of the homeless and their needs. (This is reframing.) Then a solution might be obtainable that meets the needs and concerns of most citizens better than any scenario developed initially.

Importance:

The way one frames a conflict is important for many reasons. For one, it determines whether a situation is seen as a conflict at all. If one person makes a rude comment to another person, the recipient of the comment may take offense (thus framing the situation as a conflict) while another might just ignore it, or laugh about it.

Secondly, one's frame determines what one will do about a situation. If a situation is considered unimportant, it will probably be ignored. If the conflict is considered important, however, the people involved need to decide how they are going to handle it. If they think it is a resolvable problem, they may try to talk about it informally or try to negotiate a solution. If they think it is only resolvable by force, then they are likely to use that approach.

Application:

Often disputants frame conflicts in adversarial or win-lose terms. They assume that the only way to get what they want is if the other party does not get what he or she wants. Rather than seeking a win-win solution, they therefore seek ways to build their power so that they can force the other side to give in. When both sides do this, the inevitable result is escalation, a hardening of positions, an increased danger of destructive confrontation (perhaps even violence) and a much diminished possibility of solving the problem. By reframing the conflict in a win-win or mutually beneficial way, the conflict can often be handled much more constructively. While such reframing is not always possible, often it is, especially with the help of a trained intermediary working with the parties. But even without intermediaries, if people focus on the way they are framing a problem, they will often realize that another approach might allow them to confront the conflict in a more constructive way.

Links to Related Articles: