Meta-theorizing framing in communication research (1992–2022): toward academic silos or professionalized specialization?

Abstract Framing, a prominent communication theory, is often lamented as a fractured paradigm, leading some to offer radical changes to its conceptualization, operationalization, and application. Using a meta-theoretical and computational approach, we analyze three decades of framing research to examine academic silos, specializations, the canon’s formation, gender inequalities, authors’ origins, countries studied, and methods used in framing research. Instead of silos, our analysis of 5,291 papers and over 170,000 citations identified specializations formed around a core of canonic texts. While framing research has become more diverse over the years, males affiliated with U.S. institutions still predominately author canonical works. Results reject the isolated-silos hypothesis in favor of a view of framing as a bridging networked paradigm, coalescing around core assumptions, definitions, and approaches. These findings contrast with the common fractured-paradigm narrative and challenge calls for radical solutions.