- Theoretical Background
- Research Question & Hypothesis
- Method
- Outlook
- Working Papers and Publications
- Teaching on Climate Change Communication
Theoretical Background
• Journalists as interpretive community (Zelizer, 1993)
• Frames as patterns of interpretation and presentation (Gitlin 1980)
• Three types of frames:
− Generic frames: interpretations across topics (Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000)
− Issue-specific frames: problem definitions on a specific topic (Entman 1993)
− Master frames: concepts that integrate issue-specific frames (Benford and Snow 1992)
• From “agenda-setting” and “agenda-sending” (Blumler and Gurevitch, 1995) to frame-setting and frame-sending
Research Questions and Hypothesis
RQ1: What and how do journalists contribute to news frames?
RQ2: How do journalists interpret climate change? (journalist frames)
RQ3: How do journalists present climate change? (news frames)
Hypotheses
H1: They provide us with their personal interpretations of issues. (frame-setting)
H2: They echo the frames from influential actors. (frame-sending)
Method
Research design:
• Online survey to measure journalist frames
• Content analysis to measure news frames
Operationalization:
• Holistic approach to measure generic frames
• Modular approach to measure issue-specific frames (causes, problems, and solutions)
Sample:
• Climate journalists: Authors of articles on climate change at leading news outlets (elite, regional, and popular press, online) in CH, DE, GB, IN, US (N = 64)
• Their print and online articles published in 2011 and 2012 (N = 750).
Data analysis:
• First- and second-order principal component analyses to identify issue-specific frames
• Bivariate correlations and (hierarchical) multiple linear regression analysis to identify relations between journalist frames and news frames.
Outlook
• Climate journalists as interpretive community connected by common frames
• Different degrees of frame-setting and frame-sending in different contexts
• Journalistic “frame freedom” depends on how journalist frames fit to…
– editorial guidelines
– journalistic routines
– public/elite opinion (conflicts/consensus on climate change)
Working Papers and Publications
- Walter, Stefanie; Brüggemann, Michael; Engesser, Sven (2018): Echo Chambers of Denial: Explaining User Comments on Climate Change. In: Environmental Communication 12(2), 204-217. DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2017.1394893 –> manuscript
- Brüggemann, Michael; Engesser, Sven (2017): Beyond false balance. How interpretive journalism shapes media coverage of climate change. In: Global Environmental Change 42, pp. 58-67. DOI: 2 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.004 –> manuscript
- Engesser, Sven; Brüggemann, Michael (2016): Mapping the minds of the mediators: The cognitive frames of climate journalists from five countries. In: Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 825-841. DOI: 10.1177/0963662515583621 –> manuscript
- Brüggemann, Michael; Engesser, Sven (2014): Between Consensus and Denial: Climate Journalists as Interpretive Community. In: Science Communication 36 (4), S. 399–427. DOI: 10.1177/1075547014533662 Download here (PDF, 182 KB)
- NCCR Working Paper 59 (2013): Climate Journalists as Interpretive Community: Identifying Transnational Frames of Climate Change
- Poster presented at International Analyses of Climate Change Communication, April 18/19, 2013, U Hamburg Download here (PDF, 512 KB)
Teaching on Climate Change Communication
All courses were held at the University of Zurich.
- Michael Brüggemann, Sven Engesser: MA Seminar: Science, Environment and Risk Communication (Fall Semester 2012)
- Sven Engesser: Lecture: Environmental Communication (Spring Semester 2012)
- Michael Brüggemann, Edda Humprecht: Two Semester BA Research Seminar Science, Environment and Risk Communication (Fall Semester 2013; Spring Semester 2014)