白俄罗斯和乌克兰抗议活动的混合方法框架分析

A. Sheppental
{"title":"白俄罗斯和乌克兰抗议活动的混合方法框架分析","authors":"A. Sheppental","doi":"10.15407/socium2021.02.079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The following study analysed online articles in German media discussing protests in Ukraine in 2014 and Belarussian protests in 2020. A mixed-methods approach of combining qualitative and quantitative content analyses was used to examine frames and frame sources utilised in the articles. There were 489 articles used for the analysis. The study also examined statistically significant differences between the frequency of frames by country. A frame indicated in each story was coded as a variable (“human impact”, “powerlessness”, “moral values”, and “conflict”). The human impact frame was more common in articles regarding Belarus than in articles regarding Ukraine. The moral values frame was the least common frame in articles regarding both Ukraine and Belarus. The powerlessness frame was the most prominent for both countries. The most significant difference between the two countries was indicated regarding conflict frame utilisation. The statistical analysis shows that there is a statistically significant difference of frames covered by German media. The statistically significant difference of powerlessness frame was: 67,49% (Ukraine) and 76,74% (Belarus); in moral values frame: 2,48% (Ukraine) and 6,59% (Belarus); in the conflict frame: 24,46% (Ukraine) and 6,59% (Belarus); in human impact frame: 5,57% (Ukraine) and 10,08% (Belarus). Finally, the utilised sources by frame were indicated. Sources utilised for the powerlessness frame were international officials and local officials (in Ukraine and Belarus). Sources utilised for the human impact frame were citizens (in both Ukraine and Belarus) and oppositional politicians (Belarus only). Sources utilised for conflict frame: oppositional politicians (Ukraine only), international officials, local officials. Sources utilised for moral values frame were local celebrities, intellectual elite (Ukraine) and oppositional politicians (Belarus). Findings show that media in Germany relied mostly on politicians and international officials, while the perspective of ordinary citizens appeared to be less prominent.","PeriodicalId":436487,"journal":{"name":"Ukrainian Society","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A mixed-methods framing analysis of Belarusian and Ukrainian protests\",\"authors\":\"A. Sheppental\",\"doi\":\"10.15407/socium2021.02.079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The following study analysed online articles in German media discussing protests in Ukraine in 2014 and Belarussian protests in 2020. A mixed-methods approach of combining qualitative and quantitative content analyses was used to examine frames and frame sources utilised in the articles. There were 489 articles used for the analysis. The study also examined statistically significant differences between the frequency of frames by country. A frame indicated in each story was coded as a variable (“human impact”, “powerlessness”, “moral values”, and “conflict”). The human impact frame was more common in articles regarding Belarus than in articles regarding Ukraine. The moral values frame was the least common frame in articles regarding both Ukraine and Belarus. The powerlessness frame was the most prominent for both countries. The most significant difference between the two countries was indicated regarding conflict frame utilisation. The statistical analysis shows that there is a statistically significant difference of frames covered by German media. The statistically significant difference of powerlessness frame was: 67,49% (Ukraine) and 76,74% (Belarus); in moral values frame: 2,48% (Ukraine) and 6,59% (Belarus); in the conflict frame: 24,46% (Ukraine) and 6,59% (Belarus); in human impact frame: 5,57% (Ukraine) and 10,08% (Belarus). Finally, the utilised sources by frame were indicated. Sources utilised for the powerlessness frame were international officials and local officials (in Ukraine and Belarus). Sources utilised for the human impact frame were citizens (in both Ukraine and Belarus) and oppositional politicians (Belarus only). Sources utilised for conflict frame: oppositional politicians (Ukraine only), international officials, local officials. Sources utilised for moral values frame were local celebrities, intellectual elite (Ukraine) and oppositional politicians (Belarus). Findings show that media in Germany relied mostly on politicians and international officials, while the perspective of ordinary citizens appeared to be less prominent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":436487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ukrainian Society\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ukrainian Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15407/socium2021.02.079\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ukrainian Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15407/socium2021.02.079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

以下研究分析了德国媒体上讨论2014年乌克兰抗议活动和2020年白俄罗斯抗议活动的在线文章。结合定性和定量内容分析的混合方法用于检查文章中使用的框架和框架来源。有489篇文章被用于分析。该研究还调查了不同国家之间帧频率的统计显著差异。每个故事中的一个框架被编码为一个变量(“人类影响”、“无能为力”、“道德价值观”和“冲突”)。人的影响框架在关于白俄罗斯的文章中比在关于乌克兰的文章中更常见。道德价值框架是关于乌克兰和白俄罗斯的文章中最不常见的框架。无力框架在两国都是最突出的。两国之间最显著的差异是关于冲突框架的利用。统计分析表明,德国媒体所覆盖的框架存在统计学上的显著差异。无力感框架的差异有统计学意义:乌克兰67.49%,白俄罗斯76.74%;在道德价值观框架方面:乌克兰为2.48%,白俄罗斯为6.59%;在冲突框架中:24.46%(乌克兰)和6.59%(白俄罗斯);在人类影响框架中:5.57%(乌克兰)和1.08%(白俄罗斯)。最后,按帧说明了所利用的源。无能为力框架所使用的来源是国际官员和地方官员(乌克兰和白俄罗斯)。用于人类影响框架的来源是公民(乌克兰和白俄罗斯)和反对派政治家(仅白俄罗斯)。冲突框架使用的来源:反对派政治家(仅乌克兰)、国际官员、地方官员。道德价值框架的来源包括当地名人、知识精英(乌克兰)和反对派政治家(白俄罗斯)。调查结果显示,德国媒体主要依赖政治家和国际官员,而普通公民的观点似乎不那么突出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A mixed-methods framing analysis of Belarusian and Ukrainian protests
The following study analysed online articles in German media discussing protests in Ukraine in 2014 and Belarussian protests in 2020. A mixed-methods approach of combining qualitative and quantitative content analyses was used to examine frames and frame sources utilised in the articles. There were 489 articles used for the analysis. The study also examined statistically significant differences between the frequency of frames by country. A frame indicated in each story was coded as a variable (“human impact”, “powerlessness”, “moral values”, and “conflict”). The human impact frame was more common in articles regarding Belarus than in articles regarding Ukraine. The moral values frame was the least common frame in articles regarding both Ukraine and Belarus. The powerlessness frame was the most prominent for both countries. The most significant difference between the two countries was indicated regarding conflict frame utilisation. The statistical analysis shows that there is a statistically significant difference of frames covered by German media. The statistically significant difference of powerlessness frame was: 67,49% (Ukraine) and 76,74% (Belarus); in moral values frame: 2,48% (Ukraine) and 6,59% (Belarus); in the conflict frame: 24,46% (Ukraine) and 6,59% (Belarus); in human impact frame: 5,57% (Ukraine) and 10,08% (Belarus). Finally, the utilised sources by frame were indicated. Sources utilised for the powerlessness frame were international officials and local officials (in Ukraine and Belarus). Sources utilised for the human impact frame were citizens (in both Ukraine and Belarus) and oppositional politicians (Belarus only). Sources utilised for conflict frame: oppositional politicians (Ukraine only), international officials, local officials. Sources utilised for moral values frame were local celebrities, intellectual elite (Ukraine) and oppositional politicians (Belarus). Findings show that media in Germany relied mostly on politicians and international officials, while the perspective of ordinary citizens appeared to be less prominent.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信