Post on 10-Jul-2015
1
Friederike Schultz, VU University AmsterdamJan Kleinijenhuis, VU University AmsterdamSonja Utz, VU University AmsterdamDirk Oegema, VU University AmsterdamWouter van Atteveldt, VU University Amsterdam
Qualifying and Quantifying Frames in the BP CrisisOrganization, Media, and the Natural Environment
2
Theory & Contribution
Deficit 1: Research on Crisis Communication
•Crises studied in Mass-Communication (media-centered) or Public Relations and Management Studies (organization centered, static)
•Contribution: Examining dynamics and differences between crisis constructions in US news, UK news and PR
THE „BP“
CRISIS
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
3
Theory & Contribution
Deficit 1: Research on Crisis Communication
•Crises studied in Mass-Communication (media-centered) or Public Relations and Management Studies (organization centered, static)
•Contribution: Examining dynamics and differences between crisis constructions in US news, UK news and PR
Deficit 2: Research on Agenda Building, Agenda Setting and Framing
•lack of complexity; empirical & theoretical vagueness of framing (Scheufele, 1999)
•Meaning of objects or concepts derive from their multiple relations and integration into meaning networks (Cassirer, 1944; Geertz, 1973; Eco, 1979)
•Contribution: Alternative perspective of associative frames as complex, semantic networks with multi-dimensional links between issues, actors, attributions (causes, consequences, solutions).
Aim: Examining dynamics and differences of agenda and semantic frames between US news, UK news and PR in the BP crisis.
RQ: How do the agenda and associative frames differ and change between news and press releases over time?
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
4
Theory & Contribution
Attention for Issues and Actors in News and Public Relations
•Attention for causes, consequences and solutions changes over time (Schultz & Raupp 2010)
•Differences in crisis constructions in news and public relations• PR gives more attention to solutions, news more to consequences and causes (Heath 2004, Staab
1990)
• Certain actors like political actors are driving the agenda
SRQ1: Which differences can be observed in the attention for frame-elements (issues, actors) between news and public relations over time?
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
5
Theory & Contribution
Dynamics of Associative Frames in News and Public Relations
•To keep control corporations might avoid link between political actors and solution, whereas news emphazise a link between political actors and solutions and between the crisis corporation and cause
•Associations might change over time (crisis dynamics, inter-media-agenda-setting)
SRQ2: Which differences can be observed in the associative frames between news and public relations over time?
Measured via “asymmetric conditional probability” (Ruigrok & Van Atteveldt 2007): Whether a person associates a (BP) with b (Oil Spill) is a conditional probability
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
6
Method
• Quantitative content analysis (AMCAT): Attention for actors/issues, asymm. cond. prob.
• UoA from 20th of April – 27th of August)
• Multi-level process for keyword-List: • frequency analysis of UoA
• event chronology and qualitative reading
• frequency / correlation analysis keywords
• AmCAT-test
126 Press Releases
From BP Website
BP Press Releases
Financial NP: Wall Street J.(n= 371)
Elite NP:New York Times(n= 774)
Popular NP:USA Today(n= 257)
From Lexis Nexis
Financial NP: Financial Times(n= 1117)
Elite NP:Times(n= 1053)
Popular NP:Independent(n= 343)Sunday Times(n= 346)
US-News UK-News
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
7
20thof april: Crisis startGas, oil and concrete explodesfrom the Deepwater Horizon.DeepwaterHorizon sank April 22.
3rd of May: Obama flies toLouisana as fears grow over oil-spill desaster.4thof May: Firstpeak
26thof May: Top Kill Solution27th of May: Obama announcessix-month moratoriumon permits28thof May: Obamas second visitin Louisana.
15h of June: Obama in firstspeech from Oval Office ofPresidency focuseson spill .16th of June: Secondcontainment system installed ; BPagrees on $20 billion escrowaccount (fund).
15h of July : stop oil pouring intoGulf
27th of July: announcement thatCEO Hayward will be replaced byBob Dudley.28thof July: High peak.
20th of August: The administratorof the Gulf oil spill compensationfund released set of guidelines foremergency payments paid in theinterim to victims of the spill .
Phase 1: Politisation & Mediatisation
20th of April – 10th of May
Phase 2: Phase Institutionalization &
Legislation 11th of May – 3rd of July
Phase 3: Normalization
4th of July –15th of August
29h of June: lowest point andturning point in share movement
Results: Phases
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
8
A Vector AutoRegression model for the BP oil spill crisis
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
9
Attention for actors and frame-elements in per medium
BP USA (total) UK(total)press
releases NYT USA
TodayWSJ Sunday
TimesThe
TimesInde-
pendantFinancial
TimesActors White House, Obama 26% 59% 69% 62% 38% 37% 36% 33% 37% 40%
Court 2% 19% 26% 15% 6% 12% 15% 12% 10% 13%Politics 2% 34% 46% 31% 14% 27% 29% 24% 32% 28%EnvironmentProtest 6% 21% 27% 28% 5% 12% 12% 9% 22% 12%
Frame elementsProblem: Oil Spill 74% 84% 85% 83% 83% 63% 55% 59% 59% 69%Cause 1% 12% 16% 11% 4% 4% 12% 4% 4% 2%Consequence 57% 76% 88% 90% 44% 79% 75% 69% 88% 87%Solution 66% 66% 78% 71% 38% 53% 59% 43% 56% 59%
N (# items with BP included) 125 1427 782 261 384 2869 346 1055 344 1124
10
Results
US MEDIA
BP
UK MEDIA
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
11
Results
US MEDIA
BP
UK MEDIA
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
12
Results
US MEDIA
BP
UK MEDIA
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
13
Results
US MEDIA
BP
UK MEDIA
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
14
Results
US MEDIA
BP
UK MEDIA
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
15
Results
US MEDIA
BP
UK MEDIA
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
16
Results
BP PR US Media
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
17
Results
US MEDIA
BP
UK MEDIA
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
18
Results
US Media UK Media
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
19
Discussion & Conclusion
Discussion
•BP’s “decoupling strategy”: BP dissociated itself from being responsible for the cause and at the same time presented itself as solvent of the crisis.
•Resonance: strong resonance of BP frame in US news; political actors did not succeed in presenting themselves as the provider of the solution
•Frame-Dynamics: Reduction of frame-complexity over time
Further research
•Quantification, time-series-analysis
•Sentiment-analysis, evaluation analysis
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
20SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
p1bp Consequence ProblemOilSpill WhiteHouse BP Solution Politics
Consequence - 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.54 0.97
ProblemOilSpill 0.98 - 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.97
WhiteHouse 0.66 0.62 - 0.64 0.69 0.70
BP 1.00 0.98 1.00 - 1.00 1.00
Solution 0.84 0.61 0.66 0.61 - 0.00
Politics 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 - p1us Consequence ProblemOilSpill WhiteHouse BP Solution Politics Court EnvironmentProtes
t Cause
Consequence - 0.78 0.81 0.76 0.82 0.77 0.90 0.92 0.77
ProblemOilSpill 0.79 - 0.85 0.77 0.85 0.83 0.76 0.76 0.93
WhiteHouse 0.58 0.60 - 0.55 0.63 0.74 0.62 0.74 0.70
BP 0.86 0.86 0.88 - 0.86 0.90 0.99 0.87 0.98
Solution 0.68 0.70 0.74 0.63 - 0.77 0.76 0.84 0.83
Politics 0.25 0.27 0.35 0.26 0.31 - 0.31 0.35 0.39
Court 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 - 0.25 0.18
EnvironmentProtest
0.19 0.16 0.22 0.16 0.21 0.23 0.38 - 0.15
Cause 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.16 -
p1uk Court Solution ProblemOilSpill BP Consequence WhiteHouse Cause EnvironmentProtest
Politics
Court - 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.29 0.11 0.22
Solution 0.68 - 0.63 0.51 0.54 0.79 0.86 0.82 0.71
ProblemOilSpill 0.83 0.81 - 0.66 0.66 0.88 0.96 0.69 0.71
BP 0.95 0.95 0.95 - 0.92 0.98 0.99 0.94 0.93
Consequence 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.82 - 0.89 0.82 0.89 0.91
WhiteHouse 0.56 0.64 0.56 0.43 0.44 - 0.74 0.56 0.67
Cause 0.24 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.20 - 0.17 0.18
EnvironmentProtest
0.06 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 - 0.09
Politics 0.34 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.32 0.32 0.29 -
p2bp
ProblemOilSpill
BP Solution Consequence
WhiteHouse EnvironmentProtest
Court Cause
ProblemOilSpill - 0.79 0.85 0.87 0.78 0.91 1.00 1.00
BP 0.99 - 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
21
Quantifying frames
- Non directional- Co-occurrences
- Directional- Asymmetrical conditional probabilities
- probability of Y given X- Semantic Network Analysis: (hand)coding triplets- Subject Predicat Object
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
22
Frame characteristics
• number of objects (agenda, or nodes in the network)
• complexity• number of arrows versus number of possible arrows (entropy)
• more news more complexity
• crisis less complexity?
• conflict less complexity?
• Network characteristics (network of actors and/or issues)• indegree
• outdegree
• centrality
• betweenness
• Relations between two media or sources: dynamics• use time series and show frame setting and frame building
• autocorrelation!
• similarity, causal relations
• convergence/divergence over time
• what parts of the frame are simplified, or get more complex?
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
23
• Do frames predict above agenda’s?• any proof?
• is all variance in time series explained by agenda setting and priming?
• if so, why bother about framing?
• How and where to test?• time series
• X Y
• dependent variables:
• amount of publicity
• price of shares
• attention of the public
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011
24
Further research
Any suggestions?
SCR COMMUNICATION, OCTOBER 2011