Toolkit FAQ

 

1. What is a narrative change campaign? 

A narrative change campaign is affective, engaging pathos, telling stories of experience, wishing to create a warm feeling that easily engages the audience, feels nearly like common sense, and ultimately is appealing to the heart1 . Having built that familiarity and warmth, we then add an element that challenges our audiences to think differently, i.e. we add an element of dissonance, and this is the opening that such an approach creates. Taking this emotionally smart approach where middle audiences feel included, you can start a dialogue and have a full and frank discussion on the issues. In contrast to other approaches commonly used by progressives, these campaigns do not lead with a analytical/cognitive approach leading with facts, myth busting and rights only and appealing to the head.
 
 


2. Isn’t a reframing approach just unethical manipulation of the public debate?

An issue that comes up constantly in this discussion is one of the ethics of reframing: aren’t we just doing what unscrupulous politicians do, engaging in propaganda? And so, we should stick to the facts. Well, there is a reality, a need and a practice that would argue against this position and also can protect you from accusations of this kind. 
 
First, the reality is that politics and policy debates are never only about the facts; the values of those involved (from all sides!) will mean that they (and you!) will prioritise and pay attention to different elements and outcomes. In fact, research shows that that humans who have damage to the part of the brain that processes emotions, find it impossible to make a decision when faced with 2 opposing sets of facts, i.e. values, emotions and frames are an essential part of any political decision-making process2 . 
 
Second, in terms of practice, as with all civil society organisations who try to maintain independence, campaigners we work with are usually involved in the game of politics with a small p (e.g. liberalism, not The Liberals), with a clear commitment to values and outcomes, not partisan alignment3 . Doggedly maintaining this line can help in defending against the propaganda accusation and as Common cause argue, being fully transparent about what you are doing, who you are appealing to and why is also key in this approach4 . 
 
Lastly, those pushing an anti-immigrant line have been pushing the emotional buttons quite successfully in the last while and there is a real need to change the weather and get a progressive position back into the public debate5 .
 

 
3. What are the narratives I can use to quickly change the public debate on migration? 

Sometimes people think of a reframing approach as the application of “magic words” that can change a public debate by next Tuesday! Lakoff brilliantly summarises the real challenge:
 
“Reframing is not easy or simple. It is not a matter of finding some magic words. Frames are ideas, not slogans. Reframing is more a matter of accessing what we and like-minded others already believe unconsciously, making it conscious, and repeating it till it enters the public discourse. It doesn’t happen overnight. It’s an ongoing process. It requires repetition and focus and dedication.”6
 
So a reframing approach is not a magic bullet, it takes time, engagement and commitment to change public discourse and reset expectations through a strategic communications approach. 
 


4. Isn’t all this frames stuff just the black arts, all soft and unpredictable?

There is no doubt it is quite a trendy thing to be focused on and there are those who maybe oversell or reduce the complexity of the approach, as if it were some short-term fix for socially intractable issues. Unfortunately, it is not, but approaching campaigning from this angle is relatively new and with a significant investment of time, energy and resources has proven to be fruitful in this new environment of partisanship and populism.
 
On the substance, the framing effect has been recognised by many as something that will change the solutions on the table, if different problem frames/definitions are accepted7 . For example, the current debates around drug treatment are the classical example of where the same social problem framed as a criminal challenge or a medical/harm reduction challenge will literally bring a completely different set of options/solutions. Tapping into the motivation and conditions whereby more positive and inclusive problem framings can be more accepted can only be a contribution to the debate. Building significant evaluation in any campaigning approach is also key to proving the influence of the approach.  


 
5. What is the difference between narrative or discourse and a frame?

Discourse analysis is the study of language in use, whereas narratives refer more to the stories we use to explain things to each other, e.g. like political issues (although discourse can also be used interchangeably with narratives in this second meaning and often is by academics). Frames are our established and socialised narratives/stories that that overtime become a part of a person’s identity and eventually, common sense (see our definition of frames for more).


 
6. Why do you not make a difference in the toolkit between asylum/refugees and migration/integration/inclusion?

In this debate about people on the move, many campaigners place a big focus on maintaining a clear distinction in terminology between those seeking asylum and the broader migration/inclusion/integration process. However, in the public discussion, this distinction is seldom respected or understood and as campaigners targeting this debate, this more amorphous view of the phenomena is what we have to deal with at the start. Some even argue that migration is such a touchstone issue that it triggers much broader debates on the nature and make up of how we see the ‘us’ in our societies8 . So we would like to clarify that when we say “the migration debate”, we are talking about the non-distinct grey zone of public discourse, but, we would argue that more effective engagement of the public will, in the longer term, allow for the distinction to be better understood and used.