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 (%), [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 )
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)

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

7. The Transactional Model of Engagement
The characteristics of protest businesses (Jordan & Maloney 1997)
Supporters rather than members are important as a source of income.
Policy is made centrally and supporters can influence policy primarily by their potential for exit.
Political action is normally by the professional staff rather than the individual supporter or member.
Supporters are unknown to each other and do not interact.
Groups actively shape perceptions of problems by providing supporter with partial information.
Supporters are interested in narrow issue areas. Particularity rather than ideological breadth is the agency of recruitment.

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. [everyday words, institutions, practices]
Introducing Frames
Vertical Slices of Frames mapped to Psychological Factors (Darnton, Crompton, Kirk 2010)
Behavior
[everyday words, institutions, practices]
Behavioral Commitments and Intentions
Surface Frames
Specific Beliefs,
Specific Attitudes
FRAMES
Conceptual Models
General Beliefs, Worldview,
Folk Ecological Theory
Values
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…
Current (Negative) Frame
Charity
Charities
Aid
Development
Corruption; Aid Effectiveness
Communications
Campaigns

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)
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

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