1 / 21

‘Finding New Frames for Development’ Summary of Findings Andrew Darnton with Martin Kirk

‘Finding New Frames for Development’ Summary of Findings Andrew Darnton with Martin Kirk at BOND NGO Directors’ Event 16th March 2011. Why Public Engagement Matters. Win a public mandate for action - for ODA eg . 0.7% GNI - for dev’t NGOs’ licence to operate

kibo-dudley
Download Presentation

‘Finding New Frames for Development’ Summary of Findings Andrew Darnton with Martin Kirk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ‘Finding New Frames for Development’ Summary of Findings Andrew Darnton with Martin Kirk at BOND NGO Directors’ Event 16th March 2011

  2. Why Public Engagement Matters • Win a public mandate for action • - for ODA eg. 0.7% GNI • - for dev’t NGOs’ licence to operate • ii) Drive public behaviours to tackle poverty • giving money (donations, purchases) • giving time (volunteering) • giving voice (petitions, marches) • iii) Open up political space for big change • deliberate to find new solutions • build support for political actions beyond aid

  3. The State of Public Engagement: Perceptions Levels of ‘very concern’ reported by the UK public (%), 1999-2010 [DFID/PPP]

  4. The State of Public Engagement: Perceptions (cont…)

  5. The State of Public Engagement: Perceptions (cont…) • Other indicators also static or actually falling • eg. Agency • eg. relative Support for Aid spending • Most of the public “uninterested and uninformed” (2009) • Trade: eg. the 4 missing facts (2004; 2007) • Corruption “the only thing people want to talk about” (and getting more salient - 2010) • Prevailing model for engaging with poverty as the Live Aid Legacy: “powerful giver” / “grateful receiver” (VSO 2002) • Goes back to 1985, still dominant to the present day: “Like I said before, this Africa thing seems to be exactly the same nowas it was when I was ten years old.” (Creative 2006) “What’s happened since Live Aid? I was at school then. Now I’m 36 and nothing has really changed.” (Mango 2009)

  6. The State of Public Engagement: Donations Voluntary Income of IAD Charities, 1979-2006 (CAF data, analysis in Hilton et al 2010)

  7. The Transactional Model of Engagement The characteristics of protest businesses (Jordan & Maloney 1997)

  8. The Case of MAKE POVERTY HISTORY • MPH as attempt to break with the transactional model of engagement • Coalition structure • ‘Justice not Charity’ call to action • Also a mass mobilisation (to stiffen political will, secure economic change) • Achieved the latter spectacularly… • 87% aware, 15% took any action, 225k on Edinburgh rally • But few heard the call to action, because… • ‘Transaction’ frame too strong eg. assumptions of money raising • Coalition too uncentred to hold the line, and break out of ‘charity’ frame • Mass-market engagement activity worked against ‘justice’ frame (eg. whitebands, texting, ‘Click’ ad, Live8) • Result: MPH reinforced the Live Aid Legacy …due to a clash of frames

  9. Towards Positive Values: Schwartz’s circumplex (2004)

  10. Towards Positive Values: Schwartz’s circumplex (2004) Equality plus… A World of Beauty Unity with Nature Protecting the environment World at Peace Social Justice

  11. Towards Positive Values: Schwartz’s circumplex (2004) Equality plus… A World of Beauty Unity with Nature Protecting the environment World at Peace Social Justice Helpful Responsible True Friendship Social Power Wealth Preserving My Public Image Authority

  12. Towards Positive Goals: Grouzet et al’s circumplex (2005)

  13. Towards Positive Goals: Grouzet et al’s circumplex (2005)

  14. Towards Positive Goals: Grouzet et al’s circumplex (2005)

  15. Introducing Frames • Frames as chunks of factual and procedural knowledge – ‘structuring structures’ in the mind • ‘Frames’ concept emerged in 1970s, in sociology, computing, linguistics • “remembered frameworks…for representing a stereotyped situation “(Minsky) • “frames of reference”“…for making sense of events” (Goffman) • Frames as ‘scripts’: eg. the ‘restaurant’ script with slots and scenarios (Abelson) • In cognitive linguistics, ‘conceptual frames’: access to the meaning of word gained through activating the whole frame (including ideas, values and feelings – even practical know-how); all this physically instantiated in the (unconscious) brain • In 2000s, George Lakoff becomes a “cognitive activist”, and creates ‘deep frames’ and ‘surface frames’ as campaign strategy tools “Surface frames are associated with phrases like ‘war on terror’ that both activate and depend critically on deep frames. These are the most basic frames that constitute a moral worldview or a political philosophy. …Without deep frames there is nothing for surface frames to hang onto.”

  16. Values General Beliefs, Worldview, Folk Ecological Theory Specific Beliefs, Specific Attitudes Behavioral Commitments and Intentions Behavior Introducing Frames Vertical Slices of Frames mapped to Psychological Factors (Darnton, Crompton, Kirk 2010) [everyday words, institutions, practices] Surface Frames FRAMES Conceptual Models Deep Frames

  17. Finding Positive Deep Frames for Development • Based on a staged conversation between senior development NGO staff, in front of Joe Brewer (cognitive policy analyst), the following antagonistic (“mutually inhibitory”) pairs of deep frames identified… • [Note: validation still required, through formal discourse analysis] The ‘Embodied Mind’ Frame NOT the ‘Rational Actor’ (Automatic/Hot Evaluation vs. Utility Maximising) The ‘Shared Prosperity’ Frame NOT the ‘Free Market’ (Care for the ‘Commons’ vs. Rational/Moral Profiteering) The ‘Participatory Democracy’ Frame NOT ‘Elite Governance’ (‘Wisdom of the Crowd’ vs. Expert Decision Making) ‘Non-hierarchical Networks’ NOT the ‘Moral Order’ Frame (Open/Looped Interactions vs. Hierarchical/Moral Power Structures)

  18. Finding Surface Frames for Development • Similarly, on the back of the staged conversation, problematic surface frames inferred…

  19. Finding Surface Frames for Development • Similarly, on the back of the staged conversation, problematic surface frames inferred…and alternatives suggested (as inputs to debate)

  20. Implications of a Frames Approach Adopting a frames approach could have fundamental effects across the system: government, NGOs and the public • Changes in our surface framing eg. less talk of ‘aid’ • Changes in our campaigning: less clicktivism, more journeys • Changes in our fundraising: less churn, more CRM • Changes in our organisation: less charity, more partnership • Changes in our sector: less competition, more collaboration • Changes in engagement: fewer transactions, more transformational experiences • Changes in policy: a Department for International Wellbeing? Ultimate aim is to bring about a ‘deep-cut values shift’ in society: • will require the whole sector, the whole of civil society • will require debate, deliberation and further research …and the time is now

  21. ad@andrewdarnton.co.uk

More Related