框架研究的框架化——"破碎的范式"三十年与"领域的躁动"四十年

To Frame the Framing Research:Three-decade "Fractured Paradigm"and Four-decade "Ferment in the Field"

框架研究与传播学科的领域交叉处隐藏着难以察觉的研究框架化现象。四十年前,为回应“贝雷尔森的挽歌”所触发的传播研究“领域破碎”之自我质疑,《传播学刊》启动“领域的躁动”专刊以重构学科边界。十年后,受期刊框架的影响,恩特曼构建了1.0版“四功能/位置”框架理论模型,试图成就“大师型理论”以提升传播学科为“大师型学科”,却在三十年间遭遇“悲观的读者”框架尤其是“破碎的范式”误读。随后,臧国仁基于“高—中—低”三层次框架构建了2.0版“共构模型”,而在此基础上精简的媒介框架理论3.0“新共构模型”提升了平台、分发、事件三方的解释力。由此,研究“领域的躁动”得以匹配“世界的躁动”,经典理论在有机循环中也实现了范式的超越。

When the framing research and communication disciplines crossed,a hidden phenomenon of research framing occurs,which is difficult to detect.In response to the“traveling theory”pioneered by Said,this paper formulates the“origin”involving three stages from the“pan”framing concept(1955-1977),“narrow”media framing effects(1978-1999),to the“pan”off-online media coverage frames(2000-),throughout which to enrich the schema of“a distance traversed”,“a set of conditions for acceptance or rejections”,and“a finally transformed(incorporated)idea”,as well as aims at constructing a sharp model for promoting conventional theories to transgressive ones based on the perspectives of journals,readers,and times to frame its trans-field travel.It has been four decades since the Journal of Communication(JoC)launched the special issue series“Ferment in the Field”in 1983.Three decades ago,the second issue organized and published the first global meta-theory media framing research article,“Framing:toward clarification of a fractured paradigm”(“Framing”)(Entman,1993),which establishes the“Four functions/positions”media frame theory 1.0 and discovers the logical starting milestone of meta-theory for framing research.To shed light on a theoretical avenue at the historical moment,this paper focuses on both close text reading and comprehensive literature inquiry methodology,as well as attempts to revisit the article“Framing”and JoC.By charting its much-awaited chronology,the paper indicates that it is the research’s perspective that frames the research question,perspective depth and beyond.Moreover,the publishing platform can affect the journal papers deeply with a reframed effect via readers’reading comprehension.Very few studies have applied the proper frame of“Framing”,on the contrary,mostly involving misunderstandings.Different from the pessimistic reader frames,such as“Framing is dead”and“paradigm is fractured”,the mainstream frame of the article“Framing”is like a positive“discipline revitalization principle”.The term“fractured”referred to in the article“Framing”is a general crisis of the unknown state of all social sciences,especially communication studies.To provide the corresponding solution,it is strongly recommended to polish the framing theory into a“master theory”,by which the communication field can be incorporated into a“master discipline”.However,due to the lack of abstracts in the article“Framing”and loss of the leading title for all the special issue series from JoC,dyslexia occurs,in which the criticism object is misread from the communication discipline into the framing theory.Besides,the“discipline revitalization principle”in the article“Framing”is framed by JoC.The articulation“fractured paradigm”between the lines is indeed a response to the ghost of“Berelson’s lament”since 1959,which argues that the state of communication is withering away under the verge of dissolution for many years.Such matters as its own“fractured”propositions are concerned by the totally four special issue series“Ferment in the Field”since 1983,including the lack of a universal communication paradigm,unwillingness of the communication scholarship to influence the practice field,lack of the core knowledge,fracture of the research objects and methods.Thus,institutional and scholarly legitimacy remains a chimera in this field.From previous literature,especially the Chinese framing research,this paper learned:To research is to frame by framing the specific academic field,and the researchers ought to advance with the local frame and times frame.At the communication community in China,the first media framing research work proposed Media Frame Theory 2.0,extending the connotation of the frame to the“high-middle-low”three-level structure by Kuojen Tsang in 1999.Then,the initial recognition of the“fractured paradigm”is due to the introduction of the inaugural issue of Journal of Communication&Society by Zhongdang Pan in 2006.Next,the rise of the Asian and especially the Chinese communication community was marked by Joseph Man Chan as the first elected Chinese Fellow in 2014,and Ang Peng Hwa as the first Asian to be elected President of the International Communication Association for 2016/17.Last but not the least,Jack Linchuan Qiu,has become the first Chinese Associate Editor of JoC since its inception after appointment as the co-editor of the fourth special issue“Ferments in the Fields”(2018),and represented JoC to re-invite Entman to think over the past,present and future of the framing theory in the era of digital technology.In the current global anti-epidemic times,the three times revision of the framing interaction“cascading model”(Entman,2004,2012;Entman&Usher,2018)has been constructed before Covid-19,too“Americanized”to adapt to the Chinese context.Hence,we needs to go beyond Entman and combine the 1.0 and 2.0 version theoretical construction to propose a newly Media Framing Theory 3.0 in an off-online media coverage framework field based on the three general elements,including“text frame”,“interpersonal vs.human-machine interacting frame”and“Entman’s four positions media frame 1.0”.As a result,in the media convergence vein,the framing function of communicator and news distribution has achieved abundantly explanatory information and promotes the“Ferment in the Field”of the framing research to match the“Ferment in the World”of times,thus inevitably leading to the organic cycle of the framing theory as a classical paradigm of a“traveling theory”.