Framing to Move From Positions to Interests
In collaborative problem‐solving, the term “framing” or “reframing” refers to the action of directing the parties' attention away from positions toward the task of identifying interests, inventing options, and discussing criteria for selecting an option.
Reframing is used in two ways. In a broad context, public issues can be reframed to increase the level of abstraction and bring diverse interests to the table. Issues framed in an either/or context often attract only those people who hold polar positions.
The second use of reframing is used within the context of deliberating a particular issue. Reframing an issue or a statement can move people off a position, and get them refocused on interests. Many times it involves using active listening skills, asking questions to probe for interests, or using other techniques for producing win‐win outcomes. This type of reframing is treated more completely in the section on facilitation techniques.
Framing can invite conflict
How an issue is initially framed will greatly affect the parties' problem-solving perspectives and level of conflict. Many community issues are initially framed as a debate. One of the most powerful ways of redirecting perspectives is to frame or reframe the initial issue. Consider the following example in which the parties are forced into polar perspectives:
“Should we adopt county-wide zoning to prevent growth and development from harming the qualities that make this area special?”
Reframing to invite solutions
The statement above invites conflict because it presupposes a solution to a problem that has many facets. It forces people to think about the issue in terms of zoning or no zoning. Residents passionate about their community may have very different interests, and zoning satisfies only some of those interests. If you asked people on the two sides of the zoning issue why they are opposed to zoning or why they advocate zoning, you might find out the following reasoning behind their positions:
Consolidation opponents:
- We need to keep infrastructure costs down.
- We want to maintain our rural, small-town way of life.
- We need to reduce traffic congestion.
Consolidation proponents:
- Landowners should have the right to develop their property as they see fit.
- We want to maintain our rural heritage.
- We need the economic benefits of growth and development.
Once interests are known, the issue may be reframed to reflect the parties' key interests, thus helping to move attention away from the two positions. Reframing the issue involves finding a common definition of the issue that is acceptable to all parties.
It is achieved by substituting the initial closed-ended question with an open-ended one. It also must reflect the key interests of the parties who are affected by or can affect the issue. By substituting a "How to..." question for a "Should we..." question, the disputants are moved from debating the relative merits of their positions to focusing on a collaborative problem- solving venture.
Reframing formula: How can we…, while at the same time…?
Reframing a public issue for collaborative problem solving will require a working knowledge of all the interests. By reflecting key interests of the disputants the reframed issue not only encourages collaboration, it signals what must be satisfied if the issue is to be resolved. Consider the following reframing of the school consolidation issue:
“How can we achieve our vision of maintaining a rural, small-town way of life and capture the economic benefits of growth and development?”
Caution: Not all issues are amenable to reframing
You will discover when exploring some issues that the parties will not agree to reframe the issue. If the issue cannot be reframed from a "should we..." question to a "how can we..."question, the issue may very likely not be a candidate for collaborative problem solving. Issues that focus primarily on basic differences in values or rights cannot easily be reframed. In these cases, you may wish to investigate ways to reduce the level of conflict and increase opportunities for dialogue but not search for collaborative resolution.
