Narratives, framing, and sentence structure

Recognize frames and narratives that uphold inequities

Background:

Frames are the way people or issues are presented to an audience. They include aspects such as the order of information, the content’s focus, and the sources used. Narratives are a collection of frames that over time create a consistent story.

Repetition makes frames and narratives stronger, so continually focusing on a single aspect of any group can perpetuate and solidify stereotypes about that group. In addition, frames and narratives that center the dominant culture can reinforce inequities and work against social justice.

Recommendation:

Be aware of the framing of your message and how it plays into larger narratives. Consider elements such as the story’s content, angle, author, sources used, and accompanying images. Question your assumptions about the people in the story and your audience, and identify the story’s potential impact on marginalized groups. Recognize how repeatedly failing to represent the diversity of our world and overfocusing on a single aspect of a person or group can perpetuate stereotypes. Also avoid uncritically repeating dominant narratives that reinforce inequitable systems. See also “Avoid problematic frames and narratives,” "Identify biased data," and “Recognize words that assume a cultural norm.”

Avoid problematic frames and narratives

Background:

One common problematic frame is deficit framing, which defines people by their problems. Deficit-based language includes words like “disadvantaged,” “vulnerable,” “underprivileged,” and “at risk.” Alternatives are describing a process of marginalization, such as “historically and intentionally excluded” and “groups disproportionately affected by [effect] because of [cause]”—like “groups disproportionately affected by COVID-19 because of systemic racism.” But it’s still important to specify the groups—are they particular racial and ethnic groups, genders, socioeconomic status groups, or other groups? (See also “Be appropriately specific.”)

An alternative to deficit framing is what social entrepreneur Trabian Shorters calls asset framing: a narrative framework that leads with people’s strengths and aspirations before mentioning challenges. Importantly, asset framing doesn’t ignore or downplay challenges; rather, it recognizes the value and contributions that people bring to society.

Below is a selection of overarching frames and narratives that can perpetuate stigma and inequities.

  • Blaming: Implying that people whom society marginalizes are responsible for inequitable outcomes is inaccurate and unfair. More equitable framing would name the systemic cause—like racism.
  • Overcoming and exceptions: Overfocusing on individual success stories can reinforce the myth of meritocracy, imply that people who don’t succeed aren’t trying hard enough, and fail to dislodge stereotypes about groups. Putting personal stories in context—describing support that individuals received and continued forms of oppression, for example—can help show that it takes more than personal effort to counter systemic biases. And complementing individual stories with larger groups’ successes can help avoid implying that individuals are an exception.
  • Polarization: Framing identity groups in opposition can reinforce stereotypes. Words like “versus” and pitting “us” against “them” can put groups into strict binaries, whereas the reality is often more complex.
  • White saviorism: A White savior frame implies that people of color need White people to save them. Words and phrases that may connote saviorism in certain contexts include “empower,” “give voice to,” “save,” “rescue,” and “protect.” Alternatives are words and phrases like “support” and “amplify,” which focus on collaboration and communities’ inherent agency.

Recommendation:

Avoid deficit framing and frames and narratives that blame, imply someone is an exception for their identity groups, polarize, or connote White saviorism. For example, avoid saying that identities are risk factors for poorer health outcomes; rather, state the disproportionate effect on people with certain identities, and name the systemic causes. And aim for descriptions over labels. (See also “Provide context” and "Avoid labeling people by a characteristic.")

When discussing the challenges or needs of a group, consider using asset framing to lead with the contributions and strengths of the group. See also the General Guidelines, “Recognize Frames and Narratives that Uphold Inequities,” “Use Active Phrasing,” “Avoid Deficit-Based Language for Socioeconomic Status,” and “Avoid Problematic Frames of Weight.”

 

Examples:

Use:

 “But it is insufficient to cover the unexpected medical costs and negative income shocks that will disproportionately hurt people of color in the coming weeks” (Center for American Progress, April 14, 2020).

 

Avoid:

the unexpected medical costs and negative income shocks for our vulnerable communities

 

Use:

“A too-small cuff gives a too high reading, let’s get the correct cuff size for you” (Weight and Healthcare, July 23, 2022).

Avoid:

You are too big for this blood pressure cuff.

Use:

“We have a unique opportunity to use our publishing platform to amplify marginalized voices and recognize historically excluded (or under-recognized) populations of chemists” (Anal. Chem. 2021, DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c05466).

Avoid:

give voice to marginalized and historically excluded

Avoid:

Being transgender is a risk factor for suicide. (Naming an identity as a risk factor can seem to blame people.)

Avoid false balance and false equivalence

Background:

False balance, also called both sidesism, occurs when communicators aim to show a balance of views on every topic but end up giving undue weight to noncredible—and often harmful—beliefs.

A related idea to false balance is false equivalence, in which people draw parallels between two things that are not alike. An example is comparing physical violence against demonstrators to damage to businesses, which are qualitatively different types of violence.

Spotting false equivalence involves recognizing power differentials between groups and using language to acknowledge those differences. One way to notice these imbalances is to understand when a harm is an individual instance versus the result of systemic bias. For example, skinny shaming—negative attitudes toward very thin people—is problematic, but it is not equivalent to the systemic discrimination and oppression that harm higher-weight people. (See also "How to Describe Antifat Oppression.")

Recommendation:

Avoid trying to show that there are two sides of every issue for the sake of trying to appear objective. Instead, focus on accuracy and credible sources of information. Also, be aware of and mention differences in power among groups. Avoid drawing a false equivalence between groups with different levels of power. See also “Choose Sources Thoughtfully.”

Example:

Use:

“Medical experts agree: Gender-affirming care is medically necessary care that can be life-saving for transgender youth” (American Civil Liberties Union, April 1, 2021).

Avoid:

Some experts say that gender-affirming care is medically necessary, whereas opponents think it’s a dangerous practice. (Repeating nonscientific ideas about gender-affirming care for the sake of trying to appear objective is dangerous and promotes false ideas about this type of care.)

Provide context

Background:

Far from being neutral, data can reflect the biases of communicators and the systems the data describe. Without context to interpret facts—such as differences between racial or gender groups—people may rely on stereotypes and blame individuals.  

The nonprofit research organization the FrameWorks Institute recommends that communicators bridge fact and interpretation by providing causal chains—logical paths from cause to effect.  For example, communicators should explain the social reasons, such as systemic racism, for health disparities between racial and ethnic groups.

Another way to provide context is to name patterns, both current and historical. For example, coverage of attacks against Asian people in the US in the 2020s should situate those events in the context of a rise in this type of violence, according to the Asian American Journalists Association.

The order of information is important when providing context. The American Heart Association’s Structural Racism and Health Equity Language Guide recommends, “When possible, explain how it happens before talking about who it happens to more often.” For example, saying “Partly because of weight stigma, inequitable access to health care, and weight cycling resulting from dieting, higher-weight people are at greater risk for certain negative health outcomes” clearly mentions the cause before the effect.

Recommendation:

When describing differences between socially dominant and nondominant groups, name the systemic causes, and avoid implying that individuals are to blame. Provide all necessary context, including historical and present patterns, for people to interpret the facts. When discussing differences between racial groups, for example, explicitly state that race is a social construct, and do not imply that biology drives differences. See also “Acknowledge systemic factors that affect socioeconomic status” and “Critically examine the evidence and sources on body size, and provide context.”

Also aim to state the cause of any disparities close to, and preferably before, the mention of the differences themselves. See also “Order information strategically.”

 

Examples:

Use:

“Research shows that because of systemic racism, [B]lack persons have higher levels of chronic illnesses compared with [W]hite persons” (JAMA Health Forum 2020, DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0769).

Avoid:

Black people have higher levels of chronic illnesses than White people. (Without context, this sentence can imply that something inherent in Black people causes more chronic illnesses.)

 

Use:

“For closeted LGBTQ+ scientists, holding back an important part of their identity creates psychological stresses that their straight and cisgender peers generally do not have to consider. These cognitive burdens can prevent smart, well-trained scientists from being as productive as they might otherwise be in their intellectually challenging, creative fields” (C&EN, April 8, 2022).

Avoid:

LGBTQ+ scientists who are not out at work publish fewer papers than their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts. (This sentence needs the context of the systemic factors that contribute to this effect.)

Use:

“There was a lot of distrust for research and government, and many people said that they didn’t want needles going into their kids. [This distrust stems in part from the US health-care system’s historical and ongoing anti-Black racism, which has resulted in substandard care for Black people in the US─Ed.]” (ACS Cent. Sci. 2023, DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.2c01545). (The editor’s explanation puts the distrust in context. Leaving that explanation out could paint the community as being unnecessarily cautious.)

Use:

“Black and Indigenous trans women are disproportionately living with HIV and experience syndemic conditions (such as unstable housing and reliance on sex work because of economic disenfranchisement) because of the intersectional impact of structural racism, colonialism, and misogyny, as well as transphobia” (Sex. Transm. Dis. 2022, DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001533).

Avoid:

Black and Indigenous trans women are disproportionately living with HIV. (Naming the effect without an explanation could cause people to blame people instead of structures.)

Choose sources thoughtfully

Background:

Including a diverse range of people in stories is more inclusive than focusing on only one part of the population. Also, centering people who are most impacted by a story is more appropriate than prioritizing people who are only peripherally related. Importantly, when people are included in a story, they should not serve to just represent a particular identity; they should be treated as meaningful sources with important contributions.  

Another issue with sourcing is when biased sources are used and when those biases aren’t explained. It's important to recognize that even “official” sources—such as those by police departments—might be biased, be inaccurate, and use passive language that obscures who is at fault. Choosing sources carefully and being transparent about who or what a source is can help people communicate more accurately and in a way that promotes equity.

Recommendation:

When choosing individuals as sources, aim to include a diverse mix without tokenizing anyone or treating people as spokespeople for a particular identity. When content affects a particular population, highlight voices from within that community; give due appreciation to lived experiences as a form of expertise.

Use credible sources, and recognize when even “official” sources may have inaccurate information. Also be transparent about sources’ backgrounds and goals. Recognize when sources do not promote social justice and equity, and accurately describe their biases to your audience. See also “Critically examine the evidence and sources on body size, and provide context” and “Identify biased data.”

Consider what information to include

Background:

One aspect of framing is the details included. Overexplaining people’s identities can make the people being defined feel that they aren’t the intended audience. This practice is particularly problematic when only nondominant identities are defined. At the same time, communicators may need to ensure content is understandable by a wide audience.

The decision about whether to define a term will vary according to how new the term is, the intended audience, and the type and format of the content, among other factors. One approach is to provide a brief aside rather than a long explanation. For example, the Trans Journalists Association Style Guide says, “When a source uses less common pronouns, it’s acceptable to have a quick, appositive phrase mentioning their pronouns.” A strategy for online pieces is to link to a definition rather than define it outright.

Recommendation:

Be aware of what terms you’re defining. Avoid lengthy definitions for only terms related to a group that is not culturally dominant. If you want to give your audience more information about a term related to a nondominant group, consider what would be the most inclusive method—linking to a definition, giving contextual clues, or providing a brief aside. See also “When to include personal information.”

Order information strategically

Background:

The order of information affects how people process that information. People tend to remember the information given first (the primacy effect) and last (the recency effect) more than content in the middle. The information given first is especially important because it primes people to think a certain way, according to a 2020 article by the FrameWorks Institute, a nonprofit research organization. The effect of order is one of the reasons that asset framing, a narrative strategy devised by social entrepreneur Trabian Shorters, involves mentioning people’s aspirations and contributions before their challenges.

The importance of order goes beyond the story level. The way groups are ordered in a list or graphic can subtly signal a hierarchy.

Recommendation:

Carefully consider the order of information. Recognize that the beginning shapes an audience’s understanding of the material, so when discussing groups that society has marginalized, aim to lead with their humanity. Also be aware of how the order of groups can imply a hierarchy. When possible, choose an order that disrupts traditional ideas of dominance. See also “Ordering groups in data visualizations” and “Order the responses in alphabetical or numerical order.”

Example:

Use:

Participants included students who were American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Latine, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White.

Avoid:

students who were White, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Latine, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (Listing "White" first in a group of races can enforce the idea that White people are the default, standard, or most powerful.)

Use metaphors carefully

Background:

Metaphors are a powerful rhetorical device for explaining complex or new information. But poorly chosen metaphors can perpetuate stereotypes or send the wrong message. For example, comparing treating cancer to fighting a war implies that if people fight hard enough, they can win; conversely, death or recurrence can be seen as a failure of strength or will. Similarly, a pattern of using metaphors related to colonialism—such as “pipeline” and “pioneer”—may legitimize those harmful practices, according to writer Bill Bigelow in a 2022 Common Dreams article.

Recommendation:

Use care when choosing metaphors. Recognize when a metaphor might perpetuate stereotypes or lead people to blame individuals instead of systems for inequitable outcomes.

Use active phrasing

Background:

Language that names oppressors can promote equity, whereas passive phrasing can hide the true causes of harm and thus obscure paths to justice. Similarly, showing marginalized people’s agency in succeeding against oppression is more appropriate than crediting systems, such as institutions.

One way to be straightforward about the causes of oppression is through active voice that names perpetrators. Active voice is a sentence structure in which the subject does the action—as in “I made a mistake.” In contrast, in passive voice—as in “A mistake was made by me”—the subject does not perform the action. Importantly, passive voice can hide actors, as in “A mistake was made.”

Using a verb without an object, a type of verb called intransitive or nonagentive, can also omit actors. For example, “A mistake occurred” and “A mistake is in the article” aren’t in passive voice (only transitive verbs can be made passive), but they also don’t name who made the mistake.

Vague noun phrases instead of strong verbs can also downplay an action: compare “an officer-involved shooting” with “a police officer shot someone.” Nouns that replace verbs are called nominalizations or zombie nouns. They often have the suffixes “tion,” “sion,” “ment,” “ence,” “ance,” or “ity.” These words can make an action more abstract and hide perpetrators of harm.

Another way that sentence structure can obscure agents is placing “it” or “there” in the subject position, as in “There was a mistake."

Recommendation:

Use active phrasing to correctly assign responsibility for inequity and for overcoming inequitable systems. For example, use active voice to name oppressors and to show marginalized people’s agency, and aim to use strong verbs and straightforward phrasing instead of verbs without objects, abstract nouns, and “it” and “there” phrases.

See also “Provide context” and “Avoid problematic frames and narratives.”

 

Examples:

Use:

“Over the past 2 decades, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) has consistently funded White researchers at higher rates than researchers from other racial and ethnic groups” (C&EN, Aug. 3, 2022).

 

Avoid:

White researchers have been funded at higher rates (Using passive voice could imply that something inherent in White researchers led to their higher funding rates.)

Use:

“At the time, Iowa State University’s racist policies meant he could not live on campus or work in the same labs as White students” (C&EN, Feb. 15/22, 2021, page 65).

Avoid:

he was not allowed to live on campus

Use:

“We are at a historic moment in time: a mainstream awakening to the pain that stems from racial injustice, with our scientific communities openly acknowledging that our practices promote racial inequity and disparity” (Cell 2021, DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.011).

Avoid:

that racial inequity and disparity exist in science

 

Use:

“She says administrators confirmed hearing rumors that the Chemistry Department discriminated against women in its hiring, but they argued that no one had ever come forward to substantiate them” (C&EN, March 7, 2023).

Avoid:

rumors about discrimination against women in the Chemistry Department

Use:

“A university investigation found that he violated university policy and harassed them” (C&EN, March 15, 2021).

Avoid:

that there was a violation of university policy

Avoid an undefined “we”

Background:

The words “we,” “our,” “us,” and “everyone” can show unity and togetherness, but when they refer to only a subset of a population, they can reveal biases. For example, saying “After the murder of George Floyd, we finally recognized the blatant racism in the US” reveals that the true meaning of “we” is not all people in the US but only the subset—mainly White people—who didn’t previously acknowledge the US’s racist systems. That use of the word “we” not only shows the limited view of the communicator but also implies who the intended audience is. Sometimes the word “us” is implied by the passive voice, as in “One lesson learned early in life is the importance of punctuality.” The passive construction presumes a universal experience. It’s more accurate and inclusive to name the specific group that “we” or related forms are meant to embody—whether that’s mainstream US culture, White people, straight people, or any other group.

Recommendation:

Avoid using “we,” “our,” “us,” or “everyone”—either explicitly named or not—to refer to a specific yet undefined group. Instead, describe the group that you intend to refer to. Also see “Recognize words that assume a cultural norm.”

 

Examples:

Use:

“Once considered taboo in mainstream cultures in the US and Europe, tattoos are more accepted socially now than they were in past generations” (C&EN, Dec. 2, 2022).

Avoid:

Once considered taboo, tattoos are now more socially acceptable. (The unspoken “we” is assumed to refer to all people, but it ignores the popularity of tattoos among many Indigenous peoples and other cultures.)

Use:

“One of the things that dominant white culture teaches us is to feel isolation and scarcity in everything we do” (Showing Up for Racial Justice Bay Area, “The vision, the mission, and the work of SURJ ”).

Avoid:

One of the things we’re taught is to feel

Recognize overlapping identities

Background:

One challenge when naming groups is how to communicate that people can hold several identities, as the word “and” to separate groups can seem to ignore overlaps. For example, some people have criticized the phrase “women and people of color” for erasing the experiences of women who are people of color. Similarly, Radical Copyeditor owner Alex Kapitan says in the Radical Copyeditor’s Style Guide for Writing about Transgender People that the phrase “transgender and nonbinary people" can imply that the two groups are mutually exclusive. Recognizing overlaps is important for acknowledging all people and for understanding the way that multiple marginalized identities can combine to compound harm—a phenomenon called intersectionality.  

One way to show overlapping identities is to give more details about the groups in question, as in “women of all races and people of color of all genders” instead of “women and people of color.” Other options include naming a specific overlap (like “women and people of color, especially women of color”), explicitly acknowledging that identities can intersect, and naming the types of oppression that created groups (like “people marginalized by racism and/or sexism”).

Recommendation:

Recognize when separating groups with “and” or “or” alone may imply that they are mutually exclusive. To recognize that groups can overlap, consider naming specific combinations—as in “transgender women, trans men, and nonbinary people” instead of “transgender and nonbinary people”—or explicitly acknowledging that identities can intersect. A formulation like “and/or” or “marginalized by [type of oppression] and/or [type of oppression]” may also work. See also “Recognize intersectionality in body size.”

 

Examples:

Use:

“Chacón’s NSF award also includes funding for them to create and organize an annual 2-day symposium at Reed that will bring together graduate students from historically marginalized backgrounds, including students of color, LGBTQ+ students, first-generation college graduates, and those from low-income families, including people with intersecting marginalized identities” (C&EN, April 8, 2022).

Use:

“Exclusionary discipline disproportionately pushes students who are Black or disabled or both out of school” (Embodied Injustice: Race, Disability, and Health, 2022).

Avoid:

who are Black or disabled

 

Use:

Our services are for cisgender women and all transgender people.

Avoid:

are for women and transgender people (This wording implies that women can’t be trans people. It positions the unmentioned “cisgender” qualifier as the default way to be a woman.)

 

Recognize negation’s flaws

Background:

Negating a statement—such as using the word “not”—can unintentionally enforce the statement that is meant to be downplayed. So using a positive phrase, as in “Lower-income people are hard working,” may be more effective at rejecting stereotypical beliefs than using negation, as in “Lower-income people are not lazy.”

Similarly, restating myths with the object of debunking them may reinforce the myth in people’s minds. The Opportunity Agenda, a narrative power organization, explains in its communication toolkit that a better strategy is to tell an affirmative story that accurately describes the situation. But The Debunking Handbook 2020, a guide by over 20 researchers, notes that debunking can be effective if done properly and when reserved for specific situations.

In addition to being ineffective, negations may perpetuate stereotypes. For example, saying someone is “not messy” may be more likely when that person is presumed to be messy; the negation signals an exception to the rule. Thus, using “not” phrases may communicate stereotypes (J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 2019, DOI: 10.1177/0261927X19869759).

Recommendation:

Avoid using “not” phrases to try to disprove stereotypes. Also avoid presenting a myth about marginalized groups and then trying to debunk it. Instead, lead with positive, accurate statements that promote social justice and equity.

Example:

Use:

“While there are disparities seen for other racial and ethnic groups, the differences between Black and White people are stark, persistent, and likely have a basis in systemic racism that goes back hundreds of years” (JAMA Network Open 2021, DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27956).

Avoid:

and are not due to biological factors

Compare thoughtfully

Background:

The way comparisons are worded can unintentionally signal who is socially dominant. For example, saying “Girls are as good as boys at math” may imply that boys are the standard (Cog. Sci. 2018, DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12637; Thinking and Reasoning 2021, DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2021.1963841). A sentence structure that more clearly communicates equality would be “Girls and boys do equally well at math.”

Another way that comparisons can subtly cue ideas about dominance is framing who is the effect to be explained. For example, explaining differences between men and women by focusing only on the attributes of women may position men as the standard (Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2006, DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.10.4.377).

In addition, the choice of which groups to compare can reveal biases. For example, the AMA Manual of Style recommends against comparing “White” with “non-White” groups, a dichotomy that positions Whiteness as the norm (see also “Minorities, non-White”).

Recommendation:

When comparing groups, be aware of how your sentence structure might signal that one group is dominant or the standard. The group that follows “as [adjective] as”—like “as good as”—or follows the phrases “less than” or “more than” may be interpreted as having higher power and status. When possible, vary the position of groups rather than always putting one group—such as men—as the default against which other groups are compared. See also “Order information strategically.”

And critically examine what groups you’re comparing; notice whether they may unintentionally signal a certain group as the norm. See also “Avoid false balance and false equivalence.”

Example:

Use:

Women and men performed equally well at computing tasks.

Avoid:

Women performed as well as men on computing tasks.

Resources on inclusive narratives, framing, and sentence structure

Previous page

General guidelines

Next page

Age
Share this page:

The ACS takes your privacy seriously as it relates to cookies. We use cookies to remember users, better understand ways to serve them, improve our value proposition, and optimize their experience. Learn more about managing your cookies at Cookies Policy.