Beyond frame analysis: Formal analysis and genre typology in the communication study of short-form environmental video messaging | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Environmental Media
  4. Volume 2, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2632-2463
  • E-ISSN: 2632-2471
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

As connected platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and TikTok rise in popular use, communication strategies are forced to grow more condensed and to be transmitted primarily across digital screens. Online short-form video has consequently become a primary format for environmental communication, though research on digital communication remains largely limited to frame analysis and discussions of print and still images. Filling a need in current scholarship on environmental media and aiming to further bridge humanities and communication research, this article offers a model for assessing environmentally themed short-form videos that complements communication studies’ focus on messaging rhetoric with humanities-based film and visual culture analytic tools for assessing the connotative aspect of aesthetic and narrative elements. Intending to offer an applicable framework for environmental messengers, we develop a genre system of short-form videos along cognitive and emotional axes that can be quantitatively identified according to formal practices, demonstrated through an examination of four environmental short-form videos.

© 2021 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00040_1
2021-03-01
2024-05-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jem/2/1/jem.2.1.55_Vaughan.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00040_1&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bain, P. G.,, Hornsey, M. J.,, Bongiorno, R., and Jeffries, C.. ( 2012;), ‘ Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. ’, Nature Climate Change, 2:8, pp. 600–03.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Balmford, A., and Knowlton, N.. ( 2017;), ‘ Why earth optimism?. ’, Science, 356:6335, p. 225.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barthes, R.. ( 1970), Mythologies, Paris:: Editions du Seuil;.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bateson, G.. ( 1972), Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology, San Francisco, CA:: Chandler Pub Co;.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Berilla, B.. ( 2010;), ‘ Engaging the land/positioning the spectator. ’, in P. Willoquet-Marcondi. (ed.), Framing the World: Explorations in Ecocritism and Film, Charlottesville, VA:: University of Virginia Press;, pp. 116–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bogacki, M.. ( 2018;), ‘ A quick guide to length for social media video. ’, Equinet, 20 July, https://www.equinetmedia.com/inbound-marketing-age-blog/a-quick-guide-to-length-for-social-media-video#:~:text=A%20Facebook%20video%20can%20be,from%2024%20to%2090%20seconds. Accessed 5 August 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Boykoff, M.. ( 2019), Creative (Climate) Communications: Productive Pathways for Science, Policy and Society, Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Boykoff, M.,, McNatt, M., and Goodman, M.. ( 2014;), ‘ Communicating in the Anthropocene: The cultural politics of climate change news coverage around the world. ’, in A. Hansen, and R. Cox. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Communication, New York:: Routledge;, pp. 221–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brereton, P., and Gomez, V.. ( 2020;), ‘ Media students, climate change, and YouTube celebrities: Readings of Dear Future Generations: Sorry video clip. ’, Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, 27:2, pp. 385–405.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Burgoon, M.. ( 1994), Human Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage Publications;.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Carr, N. G.. ( 2010), The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, New York:: W.W. Norton;.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chi, C.. ( 2018;), ‘ How long should your videos be? Ideal lengths for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. ’, Hubspot, https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/how-long-should-videos-be-on-instagram-twitter-facebook-youtube?__hstc=213625035.4abbf8adc8a64efa7318b5d53f55b2a3.1596573088222.1596573088222.1596573088222.1&__hssc=213625035.3.1596573088222&__hsfp=1230144288. Accessed 5 August 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Clement, J.. ( 2019;), ‘ Average YouTube video length 2018, by category. ’, Statista, 17 July, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1026923/youtube-video-category-average-length/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20report%2C%20the,of%206.8%20minutes%20per%20video. Accessed 5 August 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Cox, R., and Depoe, S.. ( 2015;), ‘ Emergence and growth of the “field” of environmental communication. ’, in A. Hansen, and R. Cox. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication, London:: Routledge;, pp. 13–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Cox, R., and Pezzullo, P.. ( 2016), Environmental Communication in the Public Sphere, , 4th ed.., Los Angeles:: Sage Publications;.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Culloty, E.,, Murphy, P.,, Brereton, P.,, Suiter, J.,, Smeaton, A. F., and Zhang, D.. ( 2019;), ‘ Researching visual representations of climate change. ’, Environmental Communication, 13:2, pp. 179–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Deleuze, G.. ( 1983), Cinéma I: l’image-mouvement, Paris:: Les Éditions de Minuit;.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Deleuze, G.. ( 1985), Cinéma II: l’Image-temps, Paris:: Les Éditions de Minuit;.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Doyle, J.. ( 2007;), ‘ Picturing the clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the representational politics of climate change communication. ’, Science as Culture, 16:2, pp. 129–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fay, J.. ( 2018), Inhospitable World: Cinema in the Time of the Anthropocene, New York:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Feinberg, M., and Willer, R.. ( 2011;), ‘ Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. ’, Psychological Science, 22:1, pp. 34–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Fishman, E.. ( 2016;), ‘ How long should your next video be?. ’, Wistia, 5 July, https://wistia.com/learn/marketing/optimal-video-length. Accessed 5 August 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fiske, J.. ( 1987), Television Culture, London:: Metheun;.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fiske, J.. ( 1990), Introduction to Communication Studies, London and New York:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ford, J.. ( 1956), The Searchers, USA:: C.V. Whitney Pictures;.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Foust, C. R., and Shannon Murphy, W.. ( 2009;), ‘ Revealing and reframing apocalyptic tragedy in global warming discourse. ’, Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3:2, pp. 151–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gerrig, R. J.. ( 1993), Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading, New Haven, CT:: Yale University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gitlin, T.. ( 1980), The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & Unmaking of the New Left, Berkeley, CA:: University of California Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Goffman, E.. ( 1974), Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Green, M. C., and Brock, T. C.. ( 2000;), ‘ The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79:5, pp. 701–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Green, M.,, Brock, T., and Kaufman, G.. ( 2004;), ‘ Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. ’, Communication Theory, 14:4, pp. 311–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hall, S.. ( 1973), Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse, Birmingham:: Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies;.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hammond, P.. ( 2018), Climate Change and Post-Political Communication, New York:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Henderson, B.. ( 1980;), ‘ “The Searchers”: An American dilemma. ’, Film Quarterly, 34:2, pp. 9–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hoffman, A. J.. ( 2015), How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate, Stanford, CA:: Stanford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hulme, M.. ( 2009), Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity, Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Jacobson, B. R.. ( 2017;), ‘ Big oil’s high-risk love affair with film. ’, Los Angeles Review of Books, 7 April, https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/big-oils-high-risk-love-affair-with-film/. Accessed 5 August 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Jang, S. M., and Hart, P. S.. ( 2015;), ‘ Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. ’, Global Environmental Change, 32, May, pp. 11–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Jenkins, H.. ( 2006), Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, New York:: New York University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Joon-Ho, B.. ( 2017), Okja, South Korea and USA:: Plan B Entertainment;.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kitchen, P.,, Kerr, G.,, Schultz, D.,, McColl, R., and Pals, H.. ( 2014;), ‘ The elaboration likelihood model: Review, critique and research agenda. ’, European Journal of Marketing, 48:11&12, pp. 2033–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Krajewski, J. M. T.,, Schumacher, A. C., and Dalrymple, K. E.. ( 2019;), ‘ Just turn on the faucet: A content analysis of PSAs about the global water crisis on YouTube. ’, Environmental Communication, 13:2, pp. 255–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Leiserowitz, A.. ( 2004;), ‘ Before and after The Day after Tommorow: A U.S. study of climate change risk perception. ’, Environment, 46:9, pp. 22–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Leyda, J.,, Loock, K.,, Starre, A.,, Barbosa, T., and Rivera, M.. ( 2016), The Dystopian Impulse of Contemporary Cli-Fi: Lessons and Questions from a Joint Workshop of the IASS and the JFKI, Berlin:: Freie Universität;.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Linville, P. W., and Fischer, G. W.. ( 1991;), ‘ Preferences for separating or combining events. ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60:1, pp. 5–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Livingstone, S., and Das, R.. ( 2013;), ‘ Interpretation/reception. ’, in P. Moy. (ed.), Oxford Bibliographies Online: Communication, New York:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Maibach, E. W.,, Nisbet, M.,, Baldwin, P.,, Akerlof, K., and Diao, G.. ( 2010;), ‘ Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. ’, BMC Public Health, 10:1, pp. 299–310.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. McAfee, D.,, Doubleday, Z. A.,, Geiger, N., and Connell, S. D.. ( 2019;), ‘ Everyone loves a success story: Optimism inspires conservation engagement. ’, Bioscience, 69:4, pp. 274–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Moore, E. E.. ( 2016;), ‘ Green screen or smokescreen? Hollywood’s messages about nature and the environment. ’, Environmental Communication, 10:5, pp. 539–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Morton, T. A.,, Rabinovich, A.,, Marshall, D., and Bretschneider, P.. ( 2011;), ‘ The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. ’, Global Environmental Change, 21:1, pp. 103–09.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Moser, S. C., and Dilling, L.. ( 2004;), ‘ Making climate HOT. ’, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 46:10, pp. 32–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Nisbet, M.. ( 2004;), ‘ Evaluating the impact of The Day after Tomorrow. ’, Skeptical Inquirer, 16 June, https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/evaluating-the-impact-of-the-day-after-tomorrow/. Accessed 5 August 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Nisbet, M. C.. ( 2009;), ‘ Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. ’, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51:1, pp. 12–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. O’Dea, S.. ( 2020;), ‘ Forecast number of mobile devices worldwides from 2019 to 2023. ’, Statista, 18 December, https://www.statista.com/statistics/245501/multiple-mobile-device-ownership-worldwide/. Accessed 5 August 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. O’Neill, S., and Nicholson-Cole, S.. ( 2009;), ‘ “Fear won’t do it”: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. ’, Science Communication, 30:3, pp. 355–79.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T.. ( 1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York:: Springer-Verlag;.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Pielke, R. A.. ( 2007), The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Ross, A. S., and Rivers, D. J.. ( 2019;), ‘ Internet memes, media frames, and the conflicting logics of climate change discourse. ’, Environmental Communication, 13:7, pp. 975–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Schatz, T.. ( 1981), Hollywood Genres: Formulas, Filmmaking, and the Studio System, Philadelphia, PA:: Temple University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Schneider-Mayerson, M.,, Weik von Mossner, A., and Malecki, W. P.. ( 2020;), ‘ Environmental ecocriticism: Environmental texts and empirical methods. ’, ISLE, 27:2, pp. 327–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Schumann, D. W.,, Kotowski, M.,, Ahn, H., and Haugtvedt, C.. ( 2012;), ‘ The elaboration likelihood model: A thirty year review. ’, in S. Rodgers, and E. Thorson. (eds), Advertising Theory, New York:: Routledge;, pp. 51–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Seymour, N.. ( 2018), Bad Environmentalism: Irony and Irreverence in the Ecological Age, Minneapolis, MN:: University of Minnesota Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Shanahan, J.,, McComas, K., and Deline, M. B.. ( 2015;), ‘ Representations of the environment on television, and their effects. ’, in A. Hansen, and J. R. Cox. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication, New York:: Routledge;, pp. 242–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Shome, D., and Marx, S.. ( 2009), The Psychology of Climate Change Communication: A Guide for Scientists, Journalists, Educators, Political Aides, and the Interested Public, New York:: Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, Columbia University;.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Shriver-Rice, M., and Vaughan, H.. ( 2020;), ‘ What is environmental media studies?. ’, Journal of Environmental Media, 1:1, pp. 3–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Slater, M. D., and Rouner, D.. ( 2002;), ‘ Entertainment. - education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. ’, Communication Theory, 12:1, pp. 173–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Steede, G.,, Opat, K.,, Curren, L., and Irlbeck, E.. ( 2018;), ‘ Genetic modification, factory farms, and ALF: A focus group study of the Netflix original film Okja. ’, Journal of Applied Communications, 102:4, pp. 9–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Tubbs, S. L., and Moss, S.. ( 2000), Human Communication, New York:: McGraw-Hill;.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Vaughan, H.. ( 2013), Where Film Meets Philosophy: Godard, Resnais, and Experiments in Cinematic Thinking, New York:: Columbia University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Vaughan, H.. ( 2019), Hollywood’s Dirtiest Secret: The Hidden Environmental Costs of Our Screen Culture, New York:: Columbia University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Veldman, R. G.. ( 2019), The Gospel of Climate Skeptism: Why Evangelical Christians Oppose Action on Climate Change, Oakland, CA:: University of California Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Waters, R. D., and Jones, P. M.. ( 2011;), ‘ Using video to build an organization’s identity and brand: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ YouTube videos. ’, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 23:3, pp. 248–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Yacavone, D.. ( 2014), Film Worlds: A Philosophical Aesthetics of Cinema, New York:: Columbia University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Vaughan, Hunter, and Johns, Lisa. ( 2021;), ‘ Beyond frame analysis: Formal analysis and genre typology in the communication study of short-form environmental video messaging. ’, Journal of Environmental Media, 2:1, pp. 55–78, doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/jem_00040_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00040_1
Loading
Beyond frame analysis: Formal analysis and genre typology in the communication study of short-form environmental video messaging
Journal of Environmental Media 2, 55 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1386/jem_00040_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00040_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00040_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): digital video; environmental communication; frame analysis; genre theory; social media; YouTube

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error