All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Framing Problems in Crisis Negotiation: Reframing in the Case of Waco
Unformatted Document Text:  Reframing in the Waco Negotiations 2 evidenced in the talk, and examining interactional troubles can shed light on the formation and maintenance of these different, incompatible frames. The focus of this paper is on the later part of this noun/verb relationship of “framing problems,” specifically reframing problems the FBI negotiators experienced when dealing with David Koresh. I argue that while understanding the incompatible frames between the Davidians and the FBI are important, it is in examining how the incompatibility of those frames were revealed in the interaction that provides insight into how the negotiations failed and how negotiators might proceed in future crisis negotiation situations. First, I briefly define the concept of frames. Then, after laying out background information about the Davidians, Koresh, and the Standoff, I describe the parties’ incompatible frames, followed by a discussion of the materials and method used for this study. The analysis describes four reframing practices in the negotiations that changed the focus of discussion from coming out of the compound to a religious or biblical orientation. The concluding section discusses these practices in light of the generic advice provided for crisis negotiators. Frames and Frame-Shifts In Bateson (1972) and Goffman’s (1974) sense of the concept, a frame is what people think they are doing, or what they think is going on, in a situation (e.g., joking, fighting, arguing, playing). A frame anchors what Goffman calls “strips of activity” (a phrase he later applies explicitly to interaction) by interpreting the activity using a set of physical, biological, and social organizational principles. 1 Implicitly or explicitly, having a frame involves a name for the situation or interaction and having a set of expectations that go along with that name. Taking from Ross (1975), Tannen (1993) discusses frames as a “structure of expectation” (p. 15).

Authors: Agne, Robert.
first   previous   Page 4 of 36   next   last



background image
Reframing in the Waco Negotiations 2
evidenced in the talk, and examining interactional troubles can shed light on the formation and
maintenance of these different, incompatible frames.
The focus of this paper is on the later part of this noun/verb relationship of “framing
problems,” specifically reframing problems the FBI negotiators experienced when dealing with
David Koresh. I argue that while understanding the incompatible frames between the Davidians
and the FBI are important, it is in examining how the incompatibility of those frames were
revealed in the interaction that provides insight into how the negotiations failed and how
negotiators might proceed in future crisis negotiation situations.
First, I briefly define the concept of frames. Then, after laying out background
information about the Davidians, Koresh, and the Standoff, I describe the parties’ incompatible
frames, followed by a discussion of the materials and method used for this study. The analysis
describes four reframing practices in the negotiations that changed the focus of discussion from
coming out of the compound to a religious or biblical orientation. The concluding section
discusses these practices in light of the generic advice provided for crisis negotiators.
Frames and Frame-Shifts
In Bateson (1972) and Goffman’s (1974) sense of the concept, a frame is what people
think they are doing, or what they think is going on, in a situation (e.g., joking, fighting, arguing,
playing). A frame anchors what Goffman calls “strips of activity” (a phrase he later applies
explicitly to interaction) by interpreting the activity using a set of physical, biological, and social
organizational principles.
1
Implicitly or explicitly, having a frame involves a name for the
situation or interaction and having a set of expectations that go along with that name. Taking
from Ross (1975), Tannen (1993) discusses frames as a “structure of expectation” (p. 15).


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 4 of 36   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.