ABSTRACT
Many approaches to verbal framing analyses and visual framing analyses, respectively, circulate in the literature. Researchers must decide which makes most sense for each study (content analysis; content analytical study). This is one of the prerequisites for framing analyses of multimodal material consisting of words and visuals (aka integrative framing analyses; integrative framing analysis). Some approaches have more weaknesses than others; but they resonate with researchers because they also consider (a) the suitability of the approaches for answering one's research questions; (b) their own understanding of frames (definition of frames; framing definition; frame definition); (c) their own methodological preferences (quantitative, qualitative, critical); (d) cost-benefit calculations (resources, time, costs, expenses); and (e) methodological triangulation.
There are two methodologies/procedures/methodological approaches for verbal and visual framing analyses (aka integrative framing analyses; multimodal framing; multimodal frame analysis). Most scholars collect data simultaneously from words and visuals. This is a source of error because coders are subject to information processing biases (aka cognitive processing) favoring visuals over words. The data might misrepresent the material. Collecting data separately from words and visuals is a better alternative. The sequence of steps to be followed in such analyses is far from clear. Suggestions on how precisely to conduct such an analysis are offered in Chapter 5.
