Kreps et al. noted in 1998, there are two branches of health communication research found within the larger discipline of communication: the health care delivery branch, and the health promotion branch. The first drew “communication scholars who have primary interests in the ways interpersonal and group communication influence health care delivery, focusing on issues such as the provider/consumer relationship, therapeutic communication, health care teams, health care decision-making, and the provision of social support” (Kreps, 1998, p. 3). The health promotion and communication branch includes mass communication researchers who are involved with the development, implementation and evaluation of persuasive health communication campaigns to prevent major health risks and promote public health.
For example, health communication scholars have developed campaigns for preventing public risks for contracting diseases such as HIV/AIDS, heart disease, and cancer. Many health promotion scholars are also concerned with evaluating the use of mediated channels of communication to disseminate relevant health information, as well as in examining the ways that health and health care are portrayed by the media, including the news media.1
←27 | 28→
We stated earlier that the relationship between the news media and public health practitioners and scholars promoting a social determinants approach to health—thematic frames—generally cannot be described as productive or harmonious. On the other hand, the relationship between health communication framing scholars, public health practitioners, and the news media barely exists. As we will show, many health communication scholars who study thematic and episodic framing make recommendations about what journalists and public health scholars and practitioners could or should do, but very few have done much beyond the act of recommendation.
In this chapter, we addressed three reasons we believe research on episodic and thematic frames in news for the past twenty-five years has been dominated by health studies. In the mid-60s, framing studies in mass communication began to increase, especially with the introduction of emphasis framing. The introduction of episodic and thematic as a way to categorize news frames and the connection to attribution of responsibility appealed to health communication scholars as public health issues could be reframed as issues of societal responsibility with the possibility of being addressed through policy, such as seat belt laws or smoking bans to protect against second hand smoke. Health news increased in quantity and popularity. While numerous individuals across the globe can perform online searches 24/7 for health information, studies show news remains an important source for the public, especially older adults. Finally, health communication research has been funded through internal and external funding at a higher level than many other types of communication research for the past couple of decades. This has led to health communication programs at universities in countries around the world being created at the undergraduate and graduate levels. These universities hired health communication scholars for growing programs.
We have demonstrated why health journalists, health communicators, and health communication researchers have found thematic and episodic frames to be useful frames for health communication. Within thematic and episodic frames, these communicators have found frames that strike at the heart of the battle over the assignations of responsibility for problem causation as well as solutions. As we continue through this book, we will show research in health news framing ←28 | 29→continues to puzzle over a consistent, complete, and organized approach to the process and effects of thematic and episodic framing; however, we will work to untangle some of the research surrounding these health frames and propose a potential way forward.
References
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating Frame Strength: The Case of Episodic and Thematic Frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207–226. https://doi-org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/10.1080/10584609.2011.568041 accessed on March 12, 2019.
Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2015). Framing theory in communication research in Spain. Origins, development and current situation. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 70, 423–450. http://www.revistalatinacs.org/070/paper/1053/23en.html doi:10.4185/RLCS-2015-1053 accessed May 20 2019.
Barry, C.L., Brescoll, V.L., & Gollust, S.E. (2013). Framing childhood obesity: How Individualizing the problem affects support for prevention. Political Psychology, 34(3), 327–349. doi:10.1111/pops.12018
Bellah, R., Masden, R., Sullivan, W., Swindler, A., & Tipton, S. (1986). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row.
Berlo, D. (1960). Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston: University of Michigan.
Blum, H. (1980). Social perspectives risk reduction. Family and Community Health, 3, 41–61. doi:0160.6379/80/0031.0041
Cacciatore, M.A., Scheufele, D.A., & Iyengar, S. (2016). The end of framing as we know it … and the future of media effects. Mass Communication & Society, 19(7), 7–23. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.106881
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Chapman, S. (2001). Advocacy in public health: Roles and challenges. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 1226–1232. doi:10.1093/ije/30.6.1226
Chapman, S. & Lupton, D. (1994). The fight for public health: principles and practice of media advocacy. London: BMJ Publishing Group.
Chong, D. & Druckman, D. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
Coleman, R. & Thorson, E. (2002). The effects of news stories that put crime and Violence into context: Testing the public health model of reporting. Journal of Health Communication, 7(5), 401–425. doi:10.1080/10810730290001783
Dearing, J.W. & Rogers, E.M. (1996). Agenda-Setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–287. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.263
←29 | 30→
Dorfman, L. & Wallack, L. (1998). Alcohol in the news: The role for researchers. Contemporary Drug Problems, 25(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/009145099802500103 accessed on March 13, 2019.
Dorfman, L. & Wallack, L. (2007). Moving nutrition upstream: The case for reframing obesity. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 39(2 Suppl 1), S45–S50. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2006.08.018
Dorfman, L., Wallack, L., & Woodruff, K. (2005). More than a message: Framing public health advocacy to change corporate practices. Health Education & Behavior, 32(3), 320–336. doi:10.1177/1090198105275046
Dorfman, L., Woodruff, K., Chavez, V., & Wallack, L. (1997). Youth and violence on local television news in California. American Journal of Public Health, 87(8), 1311–1316. doi:10.2105/AJPH.87.8.1311
Druckman, J.N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225–256. doi:10.1023/A:1015006907312
Entman, R.M. (1993). Framing: Toward
