Framing issues in the public debate: the case of human rights

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to better understand how issues may be framed in public debate. The outcomes of this debate affect organizations. The study is based on the seven types of framing identified by Hallahan and scrutinizes which of these types is utilized, and how this is done, in the case of human rights issues.Design/methodology/approachFor this study a secondary analysis of academic papers on human rights issues was conducted. After a literature search, 40 papers originating from 23 different journals were further analyzed. Where the researchers described the framing of human rights issues, the type of framing was identified according to the typology and mode of utilization.FindingsIn the case of human rights, all seven framing types were found; however, the most common were the framing of attributes in which the economic or cultural context was emphasized and the framing of situations pointing out power differences between the actors.Research limitations/implicationsThe study underlines the complexity of framing and the importance of awareness of framing processes. It shows that the framing typology provides valuable insights into the debate on social issues, inspiring further research.Practical implicationsThis study provides a better understanding of the processes of issue framing, an important part of corporate communication strategies.Social implicationsThe study adds to actor and audience awareness of framing.Originality/valueInsights from framing theory are applied to the debate on social issues, thereby offering a fresh perspective on research in this field and relevant to corporate social responsibility.