‘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

i) 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

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

Jul-9

9

Nov-9

9

Mar

-00

Jul-0

0

Nov-0

0

Mar

-01

Jul-0

1

Nov-0

1

Mar

-02

Jul-0

2

Nov-0

2

Mar

-03

Jul-0

3

Nov-0

3

Mar

-04

Jul-0

4

Nov-0

4

Mar

-05

Jul-0

5

Nov-0

5

Mar

-06

Jul-0

6

Nov-0

6

Mar

-07

Jul-0

7

Nov-0

7

Mar

-08

Jul-0

8

Nov-0

8

Mar

-09

Jul-0

9

Nov-0

9

Mar

-10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

17

22

25

29

21

26

30

32

2626

28

26

22 22

25

21

24

27

14

16

11

18

21

22

22

19

21

23

14

16

19

13

12

17

15

18

19

16

22

20

20

17

19

11

11

12

12

8

Active Enthusiasts Interested Mainstream Distracted Individuals

Family First Sympathisers Insular Sceptics Disapproving Rejecters

Base: All Adults: Segmentation study (2,000); Sept 2008 (2,056), Feb 2009 (2.053), Sept 2009 (2,081), Feb 2010 (1,104)

The DFID Segmentation

September 2009

February 2009

September 2008

Segmentation Study

February 2010

S – Feb-09 S – Feb-09 S – Feb-09

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 now as 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)

The State of Public Engagement: Perceptions (cont…)

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

The Transactional Model of EngagementThe characteristics of protest businesses (Jordan & Maloney 1997)(i) Supporters rather than members are important as a

source of income.(ii)Policy is made centrally and supporters can influence

policy primarily by their potential for exit.(iii)Political action is normally by the professional staff rather

than the individual supporter or member.(iv)Supporters are unknown to each other and do not

interact.(v)Groups actively shape perceptions of problems by

providing supporter with partial information.(vi)Supporters are interested in narrow issue areas.

Particularity rather than ideological breadth is the agency of recruitment.

• 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

The Case of MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Towards Positive Values: Schwartz’s circumplex (2004)

EqualityWorld at Peace

Social Justice

plus…A World of BeautyUnity with NatureProtecting the environment

Towards Positive Values: Schwartz’s circumplex (2004)

EqualityWorld at Peace

Social Justice

plus…A World of BeautyUnity with NatureProtecting the environment

Social PowerWealthAuthorityPreserving My Public

Image

HelpfulResponsible True Friendship

Towards Positive Values: Schwartz’s circumplex (2004)

Self-transcendence

Physical self

Extrinsic Intrinsic

Spirituality

Community

Affiliation

Self-acceptance

Physical health

SafetyHedonism

Financialsuccess

Image

Popularity

Conformity

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

Self-transcendence

Physical self

Extrinsic Intrinsic

Spirituality

Community

Affiliation

Self-acceptance

Physical health

SafetyHedonism

Financialsuccess

Image

Popularity

Conformity

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

Self-transcendence

Physical self

Extrinsic Intrinsic

Spirituality

Community

Affiliation

Self-acceptance

Physical health

SafetyHedonism

Financialsuccess

Image

Popularity

Conformity

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

• 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.”

Introducing Frames

Introducing Frames

Values

General Beliefs, Worldview, Folk Ecological Theory

Specific Beliefs, Specific Attitudes

Behavioral Commitments and Intentions

Behavior

Deep Frames

Surface Frames

[everyday words, institutions, practices]

Conc

eptu

al M

odel

s

FRAMES

Vertical Slices of Frames mapped to Psychological Factors (Darnton, Crompton, Kirk 2010)

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)

Finding Surface Frames for Development

• Similarly, on the back of the staged conversation, problematic surface frames inferred…

Current (Negative) Frame

Charity

Charities

Aid

Development

Corruption; Aid Effectiveness

Communications

Campaigns

Finding Surface Frames for Development

• Similarly, on the back of the staged conversation, problematic surface frames inferred…and alternatives suggested (as inputs to debate)

Current (Negative) Frame Alternative (Positive) Frames?

Charity Justice; Fairness

Charities Third Sector Organisations; NGOs

Aid Mutual Support; Partnership

Development Wellbeing; Freedom; Responsibility

Corruption; Aid Effectiveness

Good/Bad Governance; Fraud

Communications Conversations

Campaigns Engagements; Movements; Dialogues

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

ad@andrewdarnton.co.uk