9 Jun
“Framing” and the Debate on Inclusion of PwDs in Tourism
Scott Rains, in an essay on the Rolling Rains Report, discusses “framing” in the context of accessible tourism. Using Jim A. Kuypers definition of frames and framing (see below), Rains notes that those currently framing the adoption of Universal/Inclusive Design by the travel and hospitality industry include Candy Harrington at Emerging Horizons, Simon Darcy at Accessible Tourism Research, Sandra Rhodda at Access Tourism NZ, Dimitrius Buhalis at Bournemouth University, members of SATH, and ENAT.
Rains goes on to write:
The overview on frame analysis at Wikipedia lists four ways of aligning the desired frame with the consensus frame of a given group:
- Frame bridging
- Frame amplification
- Frame extension
- Frame transformation
Frame bridging is the “linkage of two or more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or problem” (Snow et al., 1986, “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 51: 464-481). It involves the linkage of a movement to “unmobilized [sic] sentiment pools or public opinion preference clusters” (p. 467) of people who share similar views or grievances but who lack an organizational base.
Frame amplification refers to “the clarification and invigoration of an interpretive frame that bears on a particular issue, problem, or set of events” (Snow et al., 1986, p. 469). This interpretive frame usually involves the invigorating of values or beliefs.
Frame extensions are a movement’s effort to incorporate participants by extending the boundaries of the proposed frame to include or encompass the views, interests, or sentiments of targeted groups.
Frame transformation is a process required when the proposed frames “may not resonate with, and on occasion may even appear antithetical to, conventional lifestyles or rituals and extant interpretive frames” (Snow et al., 1986, p. 473).
When this happens, new values, new meanings and understandings are required in order to secure participants and support. Goffman (1974, Frame Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p. 43-44) calls this “keying” where “activities, events, and biographies that are already meaningful from the standpoint of some primary framework transpose in terms of another framework” (Snow et al., 1986, p. 474) such that they are seen differently. There are two types of frame transformation:
Domain-specific transformations such as the attempt to alter the status of groups of people, and Global interpretive frame transformation where the scope of change is quite radical as in a change of world views, total conversions of thought, or uprooting of all that is familiar (e.g. moving from communism to market capitalism; religious conversion, etc.).
Rains gives a publication by Bill Forrester of Travability as an example of framing the debate. This is “An Economic Model of Disability”. He goes on to say that throughout the history of this campaign for social change we see an emphasis on domain-specific change for persons with disabilities such as begun by SATH evolving toward meta-constructs such approaching global interpretive frame transformation with Forrester’s writings suggesting an economic model of disability.
Kuypers definition of framing: Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner. Frames operate in four key ways: they define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments, and suggest remedies. Frames are often found within a narrative account of an issue or event, and are generally the central organizing idea.” (Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age , Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006).
