Where does the true value of a frame analysis approach lie? A Reply to van Dijk

This paper addresses arguments raised by van Dijk in his critical appraisal of framing approaches to social movement research. In particular, the claim that frame analysis does not give sufficient attention to the intricate details of the interpretive process. In making this argument, van Dijk leans heavily on Goffman’s first category of frames (as individual acts of interpretation) at the expense of his second (relating more to inter-subjectively shared classes of schemata) used reflexively, for instance, by movements to embed a message of protest in wider value systems in the hope that it resonates sufficiently with the grounded experiences, grievances, beliefs, and cultural orientations of publics. This paper highlights how social movement frame research accounts for both categories of frames to illustrate how movements communicate across multiple levels of social interaction to maximize the societal impact of their message. When interpreted in these broader terms, the ‘how’ of interpretation, it will argue, is explained effectively by this research, contrary to van Dijk’s claim.