A complementary approach to Critical Frame Analysis and ‘what is the problem represented to be?’

Abstract

Critical Frame Analysis (CFA) is a method for analyzing policy framing by excavating rhetorical meaning. In contrast, ‘What is the Problem Represented to Be?’ (WPR) is a method for critiquing common assumptions underpinning public policy by questioning unexamined knowledges. CFA is constructivist WPR is constructionist. Can two policy methods from different research paradigms be used in tandem? Scholars do not agree if this is possible; those who do say little about why and how to do it. I argue that although CFA and WPR have distinct metatheoretical foundations, process-oriented researchers doing single case and small n studies can use both in tandem to produce more rigorous, critical scholarship. I explain why using them in a complementary fashion is not only possible but also desirable and illustrate how to do it by drawing on examples from three dissimilar policy debates about controversial gender practices like veiling.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.