Movement 4.1: Framing Through Language
Movement 4.1: Framing Through Language
This is about seeing language as a site of encounter and classification as an enacted vision of the world. The words you choose, and the systems you navigate, do not simply describe reality; they participate in constructing it. Every act of naming reflects assumptions about what matters, what belongs, and what can be known. To engage critically with language and classification is to step into an ongoing, contested process of meaning-making.
Core Question:
How do the words I choose shape the research I’m able to do? How does language create the possibilities and limits of what I can perceive?
Pedagogical Purpose:
This movement highlights that metadata and keyword selection are not neutral.
They are interpretive acts that influence how students access, frame, and narrate their research.
To develop epistemological awareness that language, and by extension classification systems, does not merely describe the world but enacts it, shaping what can be seen, questioned, and understood.
Student Outcomes:
Students will be able to:
- Reflect on how their choice of terms shapes the trajectory of their research,
- Recognize that categories and keywords reflect particular worldviews and disciplinary assumptions,
- Acknowledge where their own framing might obscure other voices, topics, or interpretations,
- Experiment with different framings to see how they might alter the direction or interpretation of their inquiry and story.
Interaction Design: Reflection Prompts
(Choose 2–3 prompts to reflect on.)
- Which words did you choose first when describing your topic? Why?
- What kinds of results did those words bring back? What kinds of sources or perspectives got left out?
- Did the system suggest any terms that felt unfamiliar, uncomfortable, or limiting? Why do you think those terms appeared?
- How might someone else frame this topic differently based on their background or field?
- Did any of the gaps in the research landscape you identified arise from limitations in existing terminology or dominant framings?
- As you consider the words you'll use in your final story, how might the technical aspects of production influence how you frame complex ideas for clarity and impact?
- How does this framing ultimately serve your core message?
Reflection Journal Companion
Follow the standard Reflection Journal structure:
- What I Am Noticing,
- What Feels Hard or Unsettled,
- What I Want to Carry Forward.
(See Movement 1 for a full detailed example.)
Black Box Micro-Engagement
At the end of this Movement, you will complete a Black Box Micro-Engagement:
- Action Step: A production-related activity focused on experimenting with reframing and reclassifying research terms and keywords to surface hidden tensions or expand inquiry paths. (Specific task TBD.)
- Personal Reflection: Reflect on the tools used, surprises, frustrations, and solutions.
- Relational Reflection: Reflect on any outside help you sought (e.g., tutorial, video, peer, etc.).
- Source Acknowledgment: Briefly cite any external models, glossaries, or search tools consulted.
- Organization Reflection: Describe how you saved, tracked, or reframed your evolving keyword and metadata choices.
(See Movement 1 for detailed reflection structure.)
AI Role
-
Current AI Role:
Socratic Prompter — guides students in reflecting on terminology choice, classification structures, and the relational consequences of language. -
Explore Further AI Role (Bias Heat-Map):
Color-codes selected keywords by prevalence in Library of Congress metadata vs. activist/community glossaries —
revealing underlying institutional vs. grassroots language biases.
Example Socratic AI Prompts:
- “You selected the term ‘justice.’ What might be a disciplinary synonym for that word in law? In sociology? In media studies?”
- “What voices or perspectives might not be captured by the terms you’ve chosen so far?”
- “Which of your terms might reflect institutional language? Which feel more personal, grassroots, or community-based?”
🤔💭 More Reflection Prompts
- How is naming an act of framing? What tensions surface when you name your inquiry one way rather than another?
- Where do you notice institutional vs. community framings around your topic?
- What stories or experiences remain invisible depending on your choice of language?
- How might you experiment with reframing your inquiry to open new doors?
- What happens when you swap out one keyword for another?
- Are there institutional buzzwords that shape how this issue is discussed?
- Are there euphemisms that obscure what’s really happening?
- What terms are debated or controversial in your research area?
- How do you decide when to quote, paraphrase, or reframe someone else’s language?
- Choose one sentence or phrase from your draft; how else could it be worded?
- Try writing an instagram post vs. a footnote about your topic; how does the language shift?
- What metaphors have you used and what are their implications?
- What new insight emerges when you treat your own language as data?