Framing the Importance of “Framing”
This week’s Munk+Evergreen seminar featured the importance of framing policy issues and intended policy outcomes. We also discussed the importance of communicating effectively to generate consensus, or a shared vision, among stakeholders with varying — and often times competing — interests, and the role framing can play in the process.
Framing is a simple, yet powerful concept. It was coined by George Lakoff, and it can be summarized by the following phrase: it’s not only about what’s being expressed, it’s also about how it’s being expressed. Framing is centred on the notion that when individuals hear an idea, or a proposition, their perspectives, anecdotes, and feelings (or more technically, frames) associated with that particular idea are triggered. The perception and the merit of the idea, therefore, is dependent on an individual’s frame. If the two are misaligned, the underlying message is missed by the individual.
The importance of correctly framing policy issues and intended outcomes cannot be underscored enough! As part of the seminar, we discussed the City of Toronto by-law, which permits the construction of laneway suites (housing) in the Toronto and East York district. This discussion was led by Mary-Margaret McMahon (ex-councillor at the City of Toronto) and Jo Flatt (Evergreen) — both played an instrumental role in making laneway suites a reality in Toronto.
Their chronicle of the passage of this by-law featured several major challenges that needed to be overcome — most of which, I’d argue, were centred on framing the issue, preferred policy option, and intended outcomes. For instance, the first, and perhaps the largest, source of resistance, especially from the local government, towards laneway housing was the name — “laneway housing.” Ms. McMahon and Flatt, in addition to numerous other advocates of the project, unpacked the opposing positions and negotiated a shared vision through extensive stakeholder consultation. The project gained momentum and won endorsements from key stakeholders, as soon as the project was renamed “laneway suites”. This is merely one example, and the approach described above enabled the advocates of this project to systematically overcome barriers and challenges.
Despite its importance, I’m of the opinion that framing receives disproportionately little attention (both in theory and practice), relative to the other stages and activities of the policy process. For instance, throughout the MPP program, only one other course briefly touched on the concept of framing. Even in that instance, the assigned reading on the topic was rather clinically academic in nature — that is, the writing style masked the concepts and their importance in stylized jargon. In hindsight, a reading on framing left no memorable impression, which is somewhat ironic and troubling. Unfortunately, things aren’t much better on the practice side of things, especially in government settings. While framing is used widely in developing political platforms, the practice rarely trickles down to policymaking. The not-for-profit sector does a much better job, in comparison, but the practice is not diffuse or implemented consistently across the sector.
Overall, it wasn’t until this week’s Munk+Evergreen seminar and assigned course readings that I really understood the concept, its importance, and how it is used in practice. Given it’s importance, a case can be made for talking about framing more deliberately and purposefully in policymaking — whether we are looking to make change from the inside or the outside.