Frame-challenge guidelines – idea collection [duplicate]

Question

Update: The FAQ is now live. Please do not make changes or discuss them here anymore.

---

A frame challenge is an answer, comment (or part thereof) that doesn’t attempt to answer the question as is, but instead disputes things the asker treats as given in their question (challenges the frame of the question). A common example are answers that point out that a question is an XY question. Frame challenges are a relevant part of this site, but they also bear the risk of belittling the asker and are a frequent source of drama (e.g., here).

That’s why I would like to create a set of rules and guidelines for them. The goal here is not to ban frame challenges altogether, but avoid the bad ones and make the good ones better and more welcoming. Also, this gives (diamond and community) moderators a basis for deletions, edits, and constructive comments. Given the individuality of frame challenges, I expect that we create a mix of rules and guidelines with a considerable grey area to be decided on a per-case basis.

Since there are a lot of angles on this, I would like to start with collecting aspects that we like to see included in such a guide. Please post answers for single aspects. These may be about (but are not limited to):

• something that you want to forbid, discourage, allow, or encourage;
• examples of problematic behaviour that you cannot categorise, but want to see avoided in the future;
• both, answers and comments, and if you think some rule should differ between them;
• what kind of assumptions can be frame-challenged;
• under which conditions frame challenges are appropriate.

Answer 1

Using my own questions as examples.

Frame challenges are fine if the frame shift answers the question. E.g.

• Why do academics drink so much coffee? Showing that academics don't drink more coffee than average answers the question because it shows the null hypothesis is good enough and the question isn't necessary.
• Why is the UK such a brain magnet? Showing that the UK isn't a brain magnet renders the question moot.

Frame challenges are not fine if they challenge something that the OP should know better than the person making the challenge, or if the frame challenge doesn't answer the question even if it's correct. E.g.

• In a yes/no question, a student gives the right answer and an unnecessary but wrong explanation. How to grade? This question gives an example of a "right answer but wrong explanation". Showing that the answer is actually right still doesn't answer the question, because it only answers that one example, and there are countless possible other examples that can be used to illustrate the problem.
• What should an editor do if the authors have guessed who the reviewers are? Arguing that the authors haven't guessed the identity of the reviewers is rude since the editor undoubtedly knows better than someone who hasn't seen the manuscript, plus even if it's true, it doesn't answer the question (see first bullet point).

Answer 2

I would add another criterion to Allure's useful list: If most of the answer is about issues that are different from that of the question, the frame-challenge is probably not helpful but off-topic.

A helpful frame-challenge will quickly address the false premise and then return to giving advice on the issue at hand. If instead it gets lost in long asides, it turns the question into an arbitrary occasion to talk about something largely unrelated, which I find quite rude.

With more than three quarters of the text devoted to the semantics of "racism" and related terms, I believe the latter applies to one of the answers that motivated this thread.

Answer 3

To add to Allure's great answer:

If the question states that the asker personally experienced a traumatic event, claiming that the traumatic event did not occur, or claiming that the event was not traumatic, is abusive. Comments or answers which deny traumatic events should be flagged as abusive and removed.

Keep in mind that the sorts of people who ask questions often have a much broader view of what is traumatic than the sorts of people who post "frame challenges."

My understanding is that this maintains the status quo.

Answer 4

Frame challenge questions may have a useful role to play in relation to some questions. However, they need to be proportional in scope in order to remain on-topic.

Users must be allowed the right to rebut a particularly contentious frame-challenge answer and be given a reasonable right to reply. This cannot be done in comments. A fairly good indicator of whether an original frame-challenge answer post is on-topic or not in relation to its scope and relevance to a particular question is the following:

• Would the addition of a reply to the answer post of a similar length and depth and of similar contentiousness wreck/ divert/ take over the original question?

To illustrate, one problematic 'frame-challenge' answer to this question was a 2,500 word thesis on race discrimination, basically a reworking of ideas from another pro-race-discrimination paper that the author has written. This in itself was a significant diversion from the intention and thrust of the Original Question, and was out of proportion in relation to the question itself and the other answers. The original question and its several answers did not even approach two thousand words in total. If there had been a corresponding 2,500 word thesis challenging the frame-challenge answer, the whole question would have been completely dwarfed by a side-show and the Original Poster and other readers coming here for similar advice would not have been served.

Allowing such an inapt and inappropriately long frame-challenge answer here, would have laid open the gates for similar, barely tangentially on-topic, thesis-length frame-challenge defences of race-discrimination (gender discrimination, discrimination based on sexual preference, age etc, etc) on hundreds of other posts, essentially allowing them to be taken over by similar side-shows.

This may be Academia stack exchange, but this is not an appropriate forum in which to (re)publish one’s own academic work.

Answer 5

Maybe it's helpful to start by laying out (my view of) the status quo, so we can see where (if anywhere) we can improve.

• Most frame challenges are done in the comments. Since the goal is to clarify the premise or reframe (improve) the question, this is an appropriate use of comments.

  • In rare cases, these go too far and offend or belittle the asker (and sometimes the asker becomes irrationally offended at reasonable questions)
  • Sometimes we try to over-constrain the question. For example, if a user unfamiliar with academia just wants a one paragraph overview of how something works (including how it might vary), it can be frustrating when we force them to specify a million different variables before answering.
  • Sometimes the frame challenge is technical (rather than about Academia) and so this is mostly off-topic (which is fine, we can move it from the comments into chat).

• In rarer cases, good answers can involve discussion of the framing

  • This often happens when it is completely clear that a particular misconception has led to the question.

  • Another such scenario is when we get no responses to our requests for details, in which case we must decide whether to close as "details needed" or to provide answers that give our "best guesses" based on the available facts (usually the latter).

  • Answerers sometimes give advice as part of their answer ("you only asked whether this is possible, but just for the record, it is a terrible idea and you shouldn't do it even if it is possible"). This is mostly fine.

  • In rare cases, answers fail to answer the actual question (e.g., "I don't know if it's possible, but it doesn't matter, you shouldn't do it"), or include long passages that are relevant to the discussion but do not answer the question. As Catija's answer yesterday reminded us, "the bulk of the answer should focus on the question itself," and so such answers are susceptible to "not an answer" flags.

Answer 6

I don't see much of a reason to do this.

• The issue only becomes an issue if people are violating the much-discussed "be-nice" rules. If people are violating that, then there are enforcement options in place. We have existing tools that adequately deal with such issues, we do not need new ones.
• As an academician, I've never not benefitted in some way from approaching a problem from a differing viewpoint. The idea of limiting answers assigned to some "frame changing" category is anathema to me. I suggest that "frame changing" might not be the real problem you're trying to solve, and encourage you to spend more time better defining the problematic aspect.
• While I clearly disagree with some of the views espoused in answers in some of the problematic cases put forth here, I found the original answer in at least one case to be largely responsive to the questions, and polite. I learned from the poster presenting their views. Yes, discussion got a little out of hand, but once again, I point you to enforcement of the "be nice" criteria as a way to handle this.
• In some of the examples posted, I can certainly understand how some would view a deletion based on a "framing" issue to be a suppression of an unpopular view (and yes-- the view is unpopular to me as well, though that's neither here nor there).
• Dealing with some unpleasantness every now and again is an aspect of moderation. While I'm appreciative of moderators' time, if a situation like this popping up periodically is taxing our moderation resources, a viable approach would be more moderators.
• I suggest that any moderation time saved by any policy along these lines may well be eaten up by higher level discussion with community staff. (In fact, it might be a good idea to invite community staff into this thread).

Answer 7

1. This site has too many complex and arbitrary rules.
2. Frame challenges are inherently unwelcoming.
3. "moderators a basis for deletions, edits" Moderator action is not needed for frame challenges unless they break an existing rule, such as being rude.

Answer 8

Frame-challenges for controversial cases (e.g., racism, sexism, derogation, etc.)

One particular context in which frame-challenges have occured, and have been controversial (e.g., in the case cited in the Meta post), is where the initial question makes an assertion that some behaviour or some person (or group of people) is bad or evil in some way ---e.g., when a behaviour is asserted to be racist, sexist, etc., or when a person or group of people are labelled with a derogatory term. Another case that sometimes generates controversy is where there are assertions of fact/evidence on university proceedings that may or may not be accurate. In such cases, answers will sometimes devote a substantial amount of space to questioning or critiquing such assertions. Some examples include:

• Disputes over racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.: Question asserts that a particular behaviour is racist, sexist, bigoted, etc; answer challenges this assertion.

• Disputes over derogatory label: Question labels a person or group of people with a derogatory name; answer challenges this descriptor.

• Disputes over factual assertions/evidence in proceedings: Question concerns some kind of (actual or potential) misconduct proceeding and makes assertions of fact/evidence; answer either challenges or questions these assertions or shows sccepticism in the assertions.

I think it would be beneficial to set out clear guidelines for these cases (and other common cases that are drivers for controversy), since they seem to me to be the main drivers for controversial "frame challenges".

My view is that answerers must have scope to question, critique, or even "attack" (not my preferred word), premises in questions on these topics. In many cases we give answers that take questioners "at their word", but a broad diversity of advice also requires this to be tempered with allowing answers that critique premises. Frame-challenges should be allowed (even encouraged) in these cases. If this is not allowed, the alternative is that aspects of questions on this site become dogma that is immune the challenge ---e.g., one cannot challenge assertions of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc., or derogatory labels applied to (unpopular) people/groups, or factual/evidentiary aspects of misconduct proceedings. If guidelines were to prevent frame-challenges in these cases, that seems to me to set us in a direction where the site would devolve into "censorship" and a prevailing orthodoxy ---immune to challenge--- would inevitably take over. I can't imagine that this would improve the quality of the site.

Answer 9

An overarching concern --- please consider with an open mind

At the risk of being further downvoted into oblivion, let me give a warning to the moderators/senior users of this site. I have noticed that there is an imbalance in rules-based challenges to answers that corresponds roughly to a preference for answers that push a "left-progressive" cultural viewpoint on various topics. When left-progressive views are put in answers, those are not flagged/removed/edited (even if clearly off-topic), but when answers present a dissenting view they are commonly challenged as "off topic" and "rude/abusive". In such cases, moderators sometimes take the (manifestly biased) view that "where there's smoke there's fire" and flags are treated as gospel, without serious consideration of the actual content of answers.**

As some of you will know/admit/grudgingly accept, academia has a well documented bias towards left-progressive viewpoints, and it is something that is derogating severely from the reputational legitimacy of the academy, to the point where there will be serious threats to the viability of university funding in the future (in my view). AC.SE seems to me to be following this general trend, where there is an effort to purge viewpoints that challenge the left-progressive hegemony. The vehicle through which this is done here is the "off topic" flag or the "rude/abusive" flag when someone sets a frame challenge to a question that assumes this orthodoxy. In the cases I have seen, the answers so flagged have clearly not been rude/abusive; often they have been extremely charitable to the OP. The reality is that the motivation is not bureaucratic but ideological/political; I have never seen an off-topic pro-progressive viewpoint generate the reaction of the recent posts.

Ignore my view if you like, but you have been warned. This is a serious issue, and it is not the internal moderators/users who will ultimately be the judges of the quality/legitimacy of sites like this. There is also a broader movement (see e.g., here) expressing deep concern for the trajectory of the academy, and it is only a matter of time before mass delegitimacy occurs. I already see new users come on here and complain that there is a leftist orthodoxy that is not open to reasonable dissent and then they leave (which seems to be by design). The present efforts seem to me to be less of a genuine bureaucratic response to a problem, and more of an ideological campaign to enforce a specific orthodoxy. If you decide to hem the site in with rules that enforce a narrow orthodoxy, it is going to wreck the site. Guys like me will continue to be a thorn in the side, but others will just turn off and conclude that this site is an ideological/cultural monoculture, unworthy of genuine consideration.

---

** This answer by a site moderator openly states that the mere occurrence of multiple flags shows that an answer is problematic; a clear case of pre-emption of any actual investigation of the content of the answer.