Chapter published in:
The Language of Crisis: Metaphors, frames and discourses
Edited by Mimi Huang and Lise-Lotte Holmgreen
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 87] 2020
► pp. 87–107

Chapter 3
Responding to organisational misbehaviour

The influence of public frames in social media

Over the past decades, the seriousness with which organisational crises have developed has, in part, been contingent on public access to social media platforms. Analysing two Danish organisational crises, the chapter explores whether the conceptual repertoires that underlie public evaluation of organisational behaviour are embedded in shared social and cultural practices that allow them to be expressed and shared easily and intuitively. The findings suggest that by drawing on well-established experiential domains in social and cultural life, users in public social media may instantiate frames that inspire other users to follow suit. This may create dominant interpretations across platforms and lay the foundation of crisis development.
Keywords: social media, public evaluation, conceptual grounding, crisis, framing, metaphor, case study
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Framing and the relevance of metaphor to public social media action
    • 2.1Metaphor as framing
  • 3.Case studies and data retrieval
    • 3.1Data and their retrieval
  • 4.Framing the steakhouse
    • 4.1Two frames to discredit the steakhouse
  • 5.Framing the bank
    • 5.1One frame to discredit the bank
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.87.03hol
References
Berlingske Tidende
2014 “Nu boykotter 100.000 danskere bøf-gigant– kommentarer” 22 September, available at: http://​www​.b​.dk​/nationalt​/nu​-boykotter​-100​.000​-danskere​-boef​-gigant#comments​-wrapper
Chilton, Paul A.
1996 Security Metaphors – Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Coombs, W. Timothy
2015 Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding, 4th Ed. Thousand Oaks/London: SageGoogle Scholar
Entman, Robert M.
1993 “Framing: Toward a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 41: 6–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green
2006 Cognitive Linguistics – An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
2003 Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London/New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairhurst, Gail
2010 The Power of Framing: Creating the Language of Leadership. New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1975 “An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning.” Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of The Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123–31. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
1982 “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, edited by Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–37. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
Gladwell, Malcolm
2014 David & Goliat– Kunsten at kæmpe mod giganter [Translated from English: David and Goliath – Underdogs, misfits, and the art of battling giants]. Copenhagen: Lindhardt og Ringhof.Google Scholar
Hallahan, Kirk
1999 “Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations.” Journal of Public Relations Research 11 (3): 205–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Robert L.
2010 “Crisis Communication: Defining the Beast and De-marginalizing Key Publics.” In The Handbook of Crisis Communication, edited by W. Timothy Coombs, and Sherry J. Holloday, 1–13. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, Chichester. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hellsten, Iina, James Dawson, and Loet Leydesdorff
2010 “Implicit Media Frames: Automated Analysis of Public Debate on Artificial Sweeteners.” Public Understanding of Science 19: 590–608. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmgreen, Lise-Lotte
2012 “Framing a Bank: Reputation Management During Financial Crises.” In Metaphor and Mills: Figurative Language in Business and Economics, edited by Michael White and Honesto Herrera-Soler, 243–64. Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Why Am I to Blame When the Law Is on My Side?”: A Study of Crises, Public Opinion and Frames.” On the Horizon 23 (4): 363–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmgreen, Lise-Lotte, and Torben Vestergaard
2009 “Evaluation and Audience Acceptance in Biotech News Texts.” Journal of Pragmatics, 41: 586–601. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnen, Marius, Marc Jungblut, and Marc Ziegele
2018 “The Digital Outcry: What Incites Participation Behavior in an Online Firestorm.” New Media & Society 20 (9): 3140–3160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark, and George Lakoff
2002 “Why Cognitive Linguistics Requires Embodied Realism.” Cognitive Linguistics 13 (3): 245–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kent, Michael L., and Maureen Taylor
2016 “From Homo Economicus to Homo Dialogicus: Rethinking Social Media Use in CSR Communication.” Public Relations Review 42: 60–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan
2005 Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Metaphor, Culture, and Discourse: The Pressure of Coherence.” In Metaphor and Discourse, edited by Andreas Musollf, and Jörg Zinken, 11–24. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Second edition. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015 “Where Metaphors Come From: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1993 “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, edited by Andrew Ortony, 202–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999 Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenges to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
2003 Metaphors We Live By. New edition with afterword. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, C., and J. Bernoff
2008 Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Li, Zongchao
2016 “Psychological Empowerment on Social Media: Who Are the Empowered Users?” Public Relations Review 42: 49–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Brooke F.
2010 “Distinguishing How Elite Papers and A-list Blogs Cover Crises: Insights for Managing Crises Online.” Public Relations Review 36: 28–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Brooke F., Lucinda Austin, and Yan Jin
2011 “How Publics Respond to Crisis Communication Strategies: The Interplay of Information Form and Source.” Public Relations Review. 37: 345–353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Musolff, Andreas, and Jörg Zinken
(eds.) 2009 Metaphor and Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muntinga, D. D., M. Moorman, and E. G. Smit
2011 “Introducing COBRAs: Exploring Motivations for Brand-related Social Media Use.” International Journal of Advertising 30 (1): 13–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Politiken
2012 ”Vrede over reklame: Hallo banktyper, tror I, vi har glemt, at I er überskurkene?” 25 November, available at: http://​politiken​.dk​/oekonomi​/privatoekonomi​/art5471175​/Vrede​-over​-reklame​-Hallo​-banktyper​-tror​-I​-vi​-har​-glemt​-at​-I​-er​-überskurkene#loggedin.
2014 ”Ekspert om Jensens Bøfhus-sagen: Det er blevet nemmere at kaste lidt op på sociale medier” 22 September, available at: https://​politiken​.dk​/oekonomi​/virksomheder​/art5543565​/Ekspert​-om​-Jensens​-Bøfhus​-sagen​-Det​-er​-blevet​-nemmere​-at​-kaste​-lidt​-op​-på​-sociale​-medier
Quinn, Naomie
1991 “The Cultural Basis of Metaphor.” In Beyond Metaphor: The Theory of Tropes in Anthropology, edited by J. Fernandez, 56–93. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ritchie, David
2003 ““argument is war”– Or Is It a Game of Chess? Multiple Meanings in the Analysis of Implicit Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbol 18 (2): 125–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romano, Manuela, and Maria Dolores Porto
2016 Exploring Discourse Strategies in Social and Cognitive Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rost, Katja, Lea Stahel, and Bruno S. Frey
2016 “Digital Social Norm Enforcement: Online Firestorms in Social Media.” PLoS ONE 11 (6): e0155923. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saeby Avis
2014 “Jensens Fiskerestaurant tabte sagen i Højesteret” 19 September, available at: http://​www​.saebyavis​.dk​/2014​/09​/19​/jensens​-fiskerestaurant​-tabte​-sagen​-i​-hoejesteret/
Shao, Guosong
2009 “Understanding the Appeal of User-generated Media: A Uses and Gratification Perspective.” Internet Research 19 (1): 7–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Friederike, Sonja Utz, and Anja Göritz
2011 “Is the Medium the Message? Perceptions of and Reactions to Crisis Communication via Twitter, Blogs and Traditional Media.” Public Relations Review 37: 20–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Friederike, and Juliana Raupp
2010 “The Social Construction of Crises in Governmental and Corporate Communications: An Inter-organizational and Inter-systemic Analysis.” Public Relations Review 36: 112–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Semino, Elena
2008 Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Twitter
2014 20 September, available at: Twitter.com, #boefhusgate. Crossref
Van der Meer, Toni G. L. A., and Piet Verhoeven
2013 “Public Framing of Organizational Crisis Situations: Social Media versus News Media.” Public Relations Review 39: 229–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van der Meer, Toni G. L. A., Piet Verhoeven, Hans Beentjes, and Rens Vliegenthart
2014 “When Frames Align: The Interplay between PR, News Media, and the Public in Times of Crisis.” Public Relations Review 40: 751–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A.
2009 Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waymer, Damion, and Robert Heath
2007 “Emergent Agents: The Forgotten Publics in Crisis Communication and Issues Management Research.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 35: 88–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, Richard, and Daniel S. Putler
2002 “How Tight Are the Ties That Bind Stakeholder Groups?” Organization Science 13 (1): 64–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ziem, Alexander
2014 Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar