A generalisable model for frame identification: towards an integrative approach

References

• Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog. The BMJ, 322(7294), 1115–1117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2010). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20(10), 1–50.
   Google Scholar
• Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365.
   Google Scholar
• Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Brüggemann, M. (2014). Between frame setting and frame sending: How journalists contribute to news frames. Communication Theory, 24(1), 61–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burnett, J., & Wood, V. (1988). A proposed model of the donation decision process. Research in Consumer Behaviour, 3, 1–47.
   Google Scholar
• D’Angelo, P., Lule, J., Neuman, W. R., Rodriguez, L., Dimitrova, D. V., & Carragee, K. M. (2019). Beyond framing: A forum for framing researchers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(1), 12–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vreese, C. H., Peter, J., & Semetko, H. A. (2014). Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: A cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communication, 18(2), 107–122.
   Google Scholar
• Diesner, J., & Carley, K. (2011). Semantic networks. In G. Barnett (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of social networks (Vol. 1, pp. 766–769). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Doyle, C. (Ed.). (2011). A dictionary of marketing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3), 93–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, M., Martin, P., & Green, G. (2007). Framing research. In M. Fox, P. Martin, & G. Green (Eds.), Doing practitioner research (pp. 7–24). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Gephi. (2010). Gephi tutorial visualization. Retrieved from https://gephi.org/tutorials/gephi-tutorial-visualization.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gephi. (n.d.a). Spreadsheet (Excel). Retrieved from https://gephi.org/users/supported-graph-formats/spreadsheet/
   Google Scholar
• Gephi. (n.d.b). Tutorial layouts. Retrieved from https://gephi.org/users/tutorial-layouts/
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1227–1288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitto, S., Chesters, J., & Grbich, C. (2008). Quality in qualitative research: Criteria for authors and assessors in the submission and assessment of qualitative research articles for the Medical Journal of Australia. Medical Journal of Australia, 188(4), 243–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuczynski, L., & Daly, K. (2003). Qualitative methods for inductive (theory-generating) research: Psychological and sociological approaches. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 373–392). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Post-positivism and the naturalistic paradigm. In Y. Lincoln & E. Guba (Eds.), Naturalistic inquiry (pp. 14–46). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Matthes, J. (2009). What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the world’s leading communication journals, 1990–2005. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 349–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minnameier, G. (2010). The logicality of abduction, deduction and induction. In M. Bergman, S. Paavola, A.-V. Pietarinen, & H. Rydenfelt (Eds.), Ideas in action: Proceedings of the applying peirce conference (pp. 239–251). Helsinki, Finland: Nordic Pragmatism Network.
   Google Scholar
• Pokorny, J. J., Zanesco, A. P., Sahdra, B. K., Norman, A., Bauer-Wu, S., & Saron, C. D. (2018). Network analysis for the visualization and analysis of qualitative data. Psychological Methods, 23(1), 169–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(11), 1451–1458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos, E. (2018). Import CSV data. Retrieved from https://github.com/gephi/gephi/wiki/Import-CSV-Data
   Google Scholar
• Reese, S. D. (2007). The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 148–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Gift giving: An interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(4), 275–307.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, B. (2004). Framing-effects approach: A theoretical and methodological critique. Communications, 29(4), 401–428.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, D., Rochford, E. B., Jr, Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilisation and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth and Thomson Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Tankard, J. W., Jr. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 95–105). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracey, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Hoonaard, D. K., & van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2008). Data analysis. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 1, pp. 186–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. (2001). Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, 21(2), 141–169.
   Google Scholar
• Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245.
   Google Scholar
• Yadav, M. (n.d.). Understanding data attribute types: Qualitative and quantitative. Retrieved from https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/understanding-data-attribute-types-qualitative-and-quantitative/
   Google Scholar