Analyzing Frames
Two layers under every frame
Assumptions
- Beliefs about the world that the frame depends on
- Two kinds: situational (“90% of my students are happy”) and theoretical (“education improves life”)
- Tacit until you name them, then they become testable hypotheses
Values
- Criteria for deciding desirable from undesirable
- Examples: security, justice, quality, fairness
- Every framing of a situation applies values, often without saying so
How to surface assumptions: the chain of whys
If A then B generates C. Walk back from C: why does B follow from A? What conditions are required? What values are threatened by the problem? Which motivations sit behind the frame?
Test of a good assumption
Falsifiable: there is some real-world data that could prove it wrong. If the assumption can survive any evidence, it is not an assumption, it is a belief.
A frame produces a story about what is wrong with a situation and what to do about it. The story rests on layers underneath it: assumptions about how the world works, and values about what matters. Both layers are usually invisible. The work of analysing a frame is the work of digging them out.
Three school examples to anchor the work
Imagine a school facing three connected challenges. Each challenge comes with a proposed fix. Each fix is a small frame:
- No licensure: “We need to remove the inconsistencies between different education providers.”
- Quality of teacher education: “We need to make sure teachers are prepared according to uniform standards.”
- Common inspection framework: “We need a system for checking the quality of education across all providers.”
Each statement has assumptions inside it. Each one carries values. Both can be made explicit, and once explicit, they can be examined.
What assumptions are
An assumption is a belief about the world. The frame uses assumptions as scaffolding, but the assumptions themselves are usually not stated.
Two kinds of assumption show up.
Situational assumptions
Beliefs about a particular situation. Examples:
- “90% of students in our school are happy.”
- “Our science teachers cover the syllabus on time.”
A situational assumption can be tested by collecting data from the actual situation.
Theoretical assumptions
Beliefs about how the world works in general. Examples:
- “Education improves the quality of life.”
- “Standardised tests measure what students know.”
A theoretical assumption is harder to test, because it is a general claim about how the world works.
The line between the two is the line between local fact and general theory.
When an assumption becomes a hypothesis
If a belief is tacit in our thinking, we call it an assumption. Once it is made explicit, it can be tested, and it becomes a hypothesis.
This shift matters. A tacit assumption sits under the frame and steers everything without being challenged. A stated hypothesis is something that can be checked. The same belief, depending on whether it is tacit or stated, behaves very differently in a teacher’s reflection.
A reflective practitioner aims to convert tacit assumptions into stated hypotheses, and then to look for evidence that would either support or falsify them.
What values are
Values are the criteria we use for deciding whether a situation is desirable or not, or whether an idea is good or bad. Values include:
- Being secure or insecure (the value of security)
- Being treated fairly or unfairly (the value of justice)
- Things being well done or badly done (the value of quality)
Every time we frame a situation, we apply values. The frame about teacher quality, “we need to make sure teachers are prepared according to uniform standards”, carries the value of quality and the value of uniformity. The frame about the inspection system carries the value of accountability across providers.
Values are usually tacit. A frame that uses the word “quality” without saying what counts as quality is hiding most of its work.
Frames, assumptions, and the thinking box
Every time we frame a situation, the frame is built on beliefs about the world that we are not aware of. Discovering those assumptions is hard from inside the frame.
There are two practical helps.
Get out of the box
Discovery of assumptions is easier when you are out of the box. A teacher who has only ever taught one kind of class struggles to see the assumptions behind their teaching. A teacher who has visited a different kind of school, or taught a very different age group for a week, finds assumptions easier to spot.
Listen to people who disagree
People who disagree with our frames are often more accurate at identifying our assumptions than we are. A colleague who teaches the same students with very different results can usually point at our assumptions faster than we can find them ourselves.
This is one reason a critical friend is so useful. Disagreement is not a sign that the friend is wrong. It can be the sign that the friend has spotted an assumption.
The chain of whys
Once a frame is named, the chain of whys is the practical tool for surfacing the assumptions inside it.
Frames usually have a causal structure. The shape is: under condition A, factor B generates outcome C. The chain of whys walks backward through that structure.
Three useful questions:
- Why does the outcome follow from the problem? What is the assumed mechanism between the problem and the outcome you predict?
- Why does factor A contribute to the problem? What is the assumed link between the cause and the effect?
- Which conditions are required for the causal relations to hold? What does the world have to look like for the chain to make sense?
A teacher who frames a class as “students do not pay attention because their phones distract them” can run the chain of whys: why does phone distraction reduce attention? Under what conditions? Are those conditions actually present in this class? Each “why” surfaces an assumption that can be checked.
It surfaces hidden assumptions inside the frame’s causal logic
Frames work by claiming that A causes B under certain conditions. Each link in that chain rests on an assumption. Asking why repeatedly forces those assumptions into the open, where they can be tested or revised. Without the chain, the frame stays unexamined.
Falsifiability as the test of a good assumption
A useful assumption is falsifiable. There is some real-world evidence that, if found, would show the assumption to be wrong. “Students who eat breakfast learn better” is falsifiable: a study of breakfast and learning could in principle find no link.
A non-falsifiable assumption sits beyond the reach of evidence. “Some students are just not meant to learn” cannot be tested. There is no evidence that would change the mind of someone who holds it. Non-falsifiable assumptions tend to lock frames in place permanently.
A reflective teacher aims for falsifiable assumptions and treats non-falsifiable ones as warnings.
Questions about values inside a frame
Values inside a frame can be surfaced with three questions:
- Why do you think this is a problem? The answer points to the values being threatened.
- Which values are threatened by the problem or by the predicted outcome?
- Which motivations sit behind the way the situation has been framed?
A teacher who frames a noisy class as a problem cares about quiet, attention, or order, and probably worries that the principal does too. A teacher who frames the same class as engagement applies the value of student energy. The values are not wrong. They are just usually invisible until the question is asked.