Fabienne Crettaz

Von Roten

Do we need a public understanding of statistics?

This paper explores arguments in favor of a public understanding of statistics and suggests its possible contributions to the analysis of surveys of attitudes toward science. Statistics permeates all aspects of life-from education, work, media, and health, to citizenship. For example, most media reporting includes statistical references to health, social and demographic trends, education, and economics. The pervasiveness of statistics poses a problem, as statistics is a difficult discipline associated with misunderstandings, which ruin trust and lead to misgivings. Civic scientific literacy covers statistics insufficiently, both theoretically and empirically. Finally, this paper formulates new explanations, built on statistical literacy, of empirical results found in surveys of attitudes toward science and suggests modes for the development of statistical literacy in this context.

Introduction

The expression "public understanding of science" (PUS), developed in the 1980s, refers to efforts aimed at promoting scientific literacy for increasing public support toward science (the more the lay people know science, the more they will love it). These efforts were synthesized through the "deficit model" which "adopted a one-way, top-down communication process" (Miller, 2001: 116). Over the years, the deficit model was criticized both conceptually and empirically [START_REF] Wynne | Public Understanding of Science[END_REF][START_REF] Evans | The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads[END_REF]. A new communication model was proposed, namely the "engagement model," based on three D's-dialogue, discussion, and debate. Nevertheless, "the end of the deficit model does not mean there is no knowledge deficit" (Miller, 2001: 118). It is important for citizens to be scientifically literate to understand and participate in public discussions of scientific issues, and more generally to function fully in a modern society.

Therefore, elaboration upon what kind of scientific knowledge citizens need remains topical. Do they need scientific facts, scientific process, or statistics? The first two kinds of knowledge have garnered much attention; however, the last one has gained little notice, despite several arguments in its favor. As statistics is one discipline of science, scientific knowledge necessarily includes statistical knowledge. However, other arguments, which distinguish statistics from other scientific knowledge, are more relevant. First, statistics is an interdisciplinary discipline, prevalent in modern science, and thus, second, statistics permeates many aspects of modern societies. Finally, just as scientific literacy has been used to explain the relationship between science and society, statistics could provide explanations of empirical results found in surveys of attitudes toward science such as the knowledgeignorance paradox, the increase in ambivalent attitudes toward science, or the unclear relationship between knowledge and attitudes toward science.

The purpose of this article is: (a) to develop reasons linked with society and statistics for a public understanding of statistics, (b) to examine if the concept of civic scientific literacy covers statistics sufficiently, and (c) to provide some arguments showing the usefulness of statistical literacy in empirical works on surveys of attitudes toward science.

A statistics-rich society

We live in a statistics-rich society: statistics permeates many aspects of life-from media, health, and work to citizenship. In the media, we can observe a growing emphasis on statistical results. This is particularly the case in health and medical reporting which tend to be the most compelling scientific issues for citizens according to surveys of attitudes toward science. The understanding of the statistical elements is an integral part of the understanding of this reporting. In addition, citizens are exposed to probabilistic estimates made by weather forecasters, physicians, and genetic counselors, to name a few. Furthermore, the basic requirements for employment encompass, in addition to reading, writing and arithmetic, quantitative or statistical competencies. Finally, most major public issues, from health care to social security, depend on data, and/or projections: "I find it hard to think of policy questions, at least in domestic policy, that have no statistical component" [START_REF] Moore | Statistics among the Liberal Arts[END_REF](Moore, : 1253)). The understanding of these statistical components is crucial to help citizens participate in public debate and arrive at political decisions.

In summary, citizens encounter statistics in multiple life contexts: as readers, listeners, viewers, workers, or actors in community activities, civic duties or political events. H.G. Wells's prophecy, at the beginning of the twentieth century, "statistical thinking will one day be as necessary for efficient citizenship as the ability to read and to write" (cited in Billard, 1998: 322) seems to have become reality. Thus, statistics should feature prominently in citizenship education.

However, the importance of statistics in our daily lives appears worth mentioning only if it causes problems. In fact, most citizens do not have the knowledge required to understand the statistical elements much less to analyze them critically and independently. 1 Popular conception of statistics suffers from ignorance, but also from misunderstandings, misperceptions, and mistrust [START_REF] Wallman | Enhancing Statistical Literacy: Enriching our Society[END_REF].

Statistical misunderstandings

Statistics requires the ability to consider things from a probabilistic perspective, and to employ quantitative technical and abstract concepts such as significance, margin of errors, and representativeness. Since these concepts are difficult to understand, statistical misunderstandings can often be observed in the everyday but also in the media and research results. It is important to clear up these misunderstandings, as they lead to the misuse of study results, and the development of a distrustful or cynical attitude toward statistics. These misunderstandings are the subject of many statistical papers or books (for example [START_REF] Huff | How to Lie with Statistics[END_REF][START_REF] Helberg | Pitfalls of Data Analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Utts | What Educated Citizens Should Know about Statistics and Probability[END_REF] and the concern of most statistics teachers and statistical societies.

For the purpose of this article, three topics have been selected, each of which will serve to illustrate different kinds of problems considered to be at the origin of these misunderstandings.

• A significant result does not imply practical importance. This first topic serves to illustrate the case of when a term has a different meaning in statistics than in everyday life. Since "significance" may be defined as the quality of being important (Merriam-Webster online English dictionary, http://www.m-w.com), there is a strong tendency for people to equate "statistical significance" with importance of results. However, to call something statistically significant is not equivalent to calling it important. Importance can only be handled by effect size or power test calculations [START_REF] Cohen | Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences[END_REF][START_REF] Crettaz Von Roten | Sur la Notion d'Effect Size" [On the Notion of Effect Size[END_REF]. This misunderstanding is not specific to lay people; even researchers, often obsessed with significance, sometimes do not pay attention to whether their findings are important. Citizens should be encouraged to ask themselves about the practical importance of significant results. • A significant relationship does not imply causality. In this instance, the problem stems from the misinterpretation of correct results. The interpretation of correlation (or other relationship measures), in terms of causation, is the most common misinterpretation of results. Assessing causality implies random assignment in an experimental studyregardless of the statistical methodology used [START_REF] Barnard | Causation[END_REF][START_REF] Cox | Causality: Some Statistical Aspects[END_REF]. In other words, observational studies are limited in their ability to illuminate causal relationships. Therefore, it is important to resist the temptation of making a causal conclusion in observational studies. Even if the causal conclusion seems logical or may be explained theoretically, some confounding variables may be the cause of the observed effect. When confronted with a significant relationship, one should always look for confounders that could provide alternate explanations for the observed effect. • Graphs should be read fully and critically. Statistics should be practiced actively so as to avoid being manipulated or led astray. This is especially true when statistics are represented graphically. Graphs are one familiar mode of communicating statistical messages. Sadly, many graphs, especially in the media with its tendency toward sensational reporting, are designed to mislead, highlight, or hide a specific trend or difference [START_REF] Huff | How to Lie with Statistics[END_REF]. To quantify this problem, [START_REF] Tufte | The Visual Display of Quantitative Information[END_REF] "lie factor" indicates the relationship between the data and the graphic. 2 As it cannot be ensured that graphic producers have followed the guidelines to guarantee graphical integrity, it is important that citizens develop skills to understand graphs, be able to read them critically and ask questions such as is the graph drawn appropriately, is any information missing, does it distort trends in the data?

For these reasons, namely the presence of a statistics-rich society and the pervasiveness of statistical misunderstandings, we need to develop and improve statistical literacy which Gal (2002: 1) defines as "the ability to interpret, critically evaluate, and communicate about statistical information and messages." Moreover, we advance that statistical literacy is an important concept for the analysis of the relationship between science and society. In this case, is it necessary to define the concept of statistical literacy or is it adequately covered by the concept of civic scientific literacy?

Civic scientific literacy

The concept of scientific literacy is an extension of the concept of literacy, meaning the ability to read and write, to science; thus scientific literacy is the ability to read and write about science. Historically, the conceptualization of scientific literacy was proposed by [START_REF] Shen | Science Literacy and Public Understanding of Science[END_REF], who divided it into three categories: practical scientific literacy, civic scientific literacy, and cultural scientific literacy. Practical scientific literacy refers to the level of scientific knowledge used to solve practical problems. Civic scientific literacy refers to the level of understanding of science needed to function as citizens. "Civic science literacy is a cornerstone of informed public policy" (Shen, 1975: 49). Cultural scientific literacy "is motivated by a desire to know something about science as a major human achievement" (Shen, 1975: 49). Since then, most works on the relationship between science and society based on scientific literacy have focused only on civic scientific literacy. [START_REF] Miller | Scientific Literacy: a Conceptual and Empirical Review[END_REF] has defined civic scientific literacy as a three-dimensional construct. Precisely, a scientifically literate citizen needs to have: "(1) a vocabulary of basic scientific constructs sufficient to read competing views in a newspaper or magazine; (2) an understanding of the process or nature of scientific inquiry; and (3) some level of understanding of the impact of science and technology on individuals and on society" (Miller, 1998: 205). This definition has originated many works-both conceptual and empirical-and, after 20 years, a consensus emerges around the first two dimensions and around their empirical measures.

The first dimension of civic scientific literacy is measured through questions about the theoretical and factual findings of science, which are selected from a population of constructs important to efficient citizenship (this population may be approximated by benchmarks for science literacy, as developed in the American Project 2061 (AAAS, 1993)). The measure includes 13 true/false items falling within the physical/natural sciences: items concern, for example, lasers, size of an electron, plate tectonics, radiation, dinosaurs, and antibiotics. Miller (2004: 278) has looked "at four basic constructs as representative of a much larger set of constructs that an individual might need to be able to read and understand a story in the Science Times section." A series of studies conducted in the United States and Europe since the 1970s, reveals that many citizens do not have a firm grasp of basic scientific facts and concepts.

The second dimension of civic scientific literacy requires that an individual display a minimal understanding of the empirical basis of scientific inquiry. The measurement of this dimension is conducted through two closed-ended items, one of which assesses the respondents' understanding of experimental logic, the other the understanding of probability, and an open-ended item on what it means to study something scientifically.

The concept of civic scientific literacy includes intrinsically statistical aspects (as statistical knowledge is necessary to read many articles in newspapers or magazines), but it doesn't mention statistics explicitly. Therefore, the empirical measures don't cover statistics sufficiently. No place has been found in the first-dimension measures for statistical knowledge, whereas statistics was defined by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 1993) as one key science knowledge necessary for a scienceliterate population. The second-dimension measures are partially related to statistics, since statistics is more than the scientific experimental method and probability.

Discussion

Statistics has penetrated into all aspects of life-from education, work, media, and health to citizenship-and this phenomenon is continuing to evolve. Thus, "statistical evidence and argument are central to decision making on controversial matters having profound social implications" (Sowey, 2003: 89). Most media include statistical references in reports on studies in health, social and demographic trends, economics, etc. The understanding of the statistical elements is an integral part of the understanding of these reports. Therefore, enhancing statistical literacy to increase workers' and consumers' competencies and to develop statistical citizenship is an important issue. Nevertheless, this task is difficult since statistics is associated with what may be characterized as a series of "mis-es"-namely misunderstandings, misperception, mistrust, and misgivings [START_REF] Wallman | Enhancing Statistical Literacy: Enriching our Society[END_REF].

In sociology, precisely in public understanding of science, the concept of scientific literacy, namely the ability to read and write about science, does not pay considerable attention to statistics, despite the arguments above. In consequence, possible explanations of empirical results found in surveys of attitudes toward science may be missed.

The knowledge-gap hypothesis states that the information flow on a new scientific issue or technology will be not homogeneous across different social strata [START_REF] Tichenor | Mass Communication Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge[END_REF]: people with higher education tend to acquire this information at a faster rate than those with lower education. Among the explanations provided by Bonfadelli, Dahinden and Leonarz (2002: 122), there is the fact that people with higher education "have better information processing skills." We advance that statistical skills are part of those skills and this suggestion is consistent with the knowledge-gap hypothesis: the more educated have higher levels of statistical literacy than those who have less education, since statistics is introduced in most mathematics curricula around the world at the secondary level and at the university level most majors require that students take an introductory statistics course.

The concept of civic scientific literacy is closely related to the "deficit model" which posits that greater scientific knowledge leads inevitably to greater support for science. A series of empirical studies have concluded that civic scientific literacy, measured as above, is a limited predictor of attitudes toward science: a small positive linear relation in some studies, curvilinear or "chaotic" in other studies [START_REF] Evans | The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain[END_REF][START_REF] Peters | From Information to Attitudes? Thoughts on the Relationship between Knowledge about Science and Technology and Attitudes toward Technologies[END_REF][START_REF] Bauer | Public Knowledge of and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures that May End the 'Science War[END_REF][START_REF] Pardo | The Cognitive Dimension of Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues[END_REF]. Recently, some work has been undertaken to find more social determinants of attitudes toward science (social values, trust in institutions, risk perception, environmental values, etc.). Before leaving aside civic scientific knowledge, we can wonder if other measurements of the concept would have led to the same results, for example a measurement that would have given statistics a place according to its role in modern science-and information-laden societies.

Empirical results have found an increase in ambivalence and "don't know" responses in surveys of attitudes toward science, and that more knowledge brings more polarized or extreme attitudes toward science [START_REF] Evans | The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain[END_REF]. On the basis of the mass media effect on the formation of attitudes, the growing emphasis on statistical results in the media may play a part. How to form an opinion about a scientific issue with statistical elements in the media, if one does not understand the statistical elements of the arguments? Since most citizens lack statistical literacy, it is therefore not surprising that ambivalence is increasing and that the better educated (with more statistical skills) are able to develop more firmly held attitudes, more extreme attitudes.

These hypothetical explanations need to be confirmed by empirical research. The introduction of statistical literacy in empirical studies is quite easy since we may ground on the development of the concept in the statistics education field. Statisticians and statistics educators have defined statistical literacy and developed the concept [START_REF] Gal | Adults' Statistical Literacy: Meanings, Components, Responsibilities[END_REF][START_REF] Delmas | Statistical Literacy, Reasoning, and Learning: a Commentary[END_REF][START_REF] Garfield | Assessing Statistical Reasoning[END_REF][START_REF] Watson | Statistical Literacy: a Complex Hierarchical Construct[END_REF]. "Statistical literacy is the ability to understand and critically evaluate statistical results that permeate our daily lives-coupled with the ability to appreciate the contributions that statistical thinking can make in public and private, professional and personal decisions" (Wallman, 1993: 1).

The concept of statistical literacy should be added as a fourth element of scientific literacy. Measurement of this fourth element could be based on recent studies on measurement of statistical literacy. For example, we could select items from the international mathematics and science achievements of students, the most well-known being TIMSS and PISA. 3 Finally, there is a need to promote dialogue on statistical literacy between educators, statisticians, social scientists (especially PUS scientists), science communicators and policymakers to succeed in enhancing citizens' statistical literacy. Resulting actions should be coordinated to gain optimal efficiency. In conclusion, major changes in levels of statistical literacy will be achieved only if it becomes everyone's responsibility: educators, statisticians, journalists, citizens, and also social scientists. Therefore I believe we need a public understanding of statistics.

Notes

1 For example, an American survey shows that only 30 percent of the respondents are able to choose the correct definition of what a 4 percent margin of error means (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2002). 2 The lie factor is the ratio of the size of an effect shown in the graphic to the size of the effect in the data. Optimal graphics gain a lie factor of 1. 3 For details, see http://timss.bc.edu/ and http://www.pisa.oecd.org/

Public Understanding of Science 15 (2)

Public Understanding of Science 15 (2)

Author

Fabienne Crettaz von Roten is trained in mathematics and has completed a Ph.D. thesis on statistics. She is now Senior Scientist, responsible for the research area "Relations sciencesociété," in the Observatoire Science, Politique et Société at the University of Lausanne. Correspondence: Observatoire Science, Politique et Société, Université de Lausanne, Rue de Bassenges 4, 1024 Ecublens, Switzerland, e-mail: fabienne.crettazvonroten@unil.ch


J Robyn Goodman

Brett P Goodman

Beneficial or biohazard? How the media frame biosolids

This study looked at how the media framed biosolids, or treated sewage sludge, from 1994 to 2004 by analyzing the 13 media frames found in 286 biosolid-related articles from newspapers in Florida, Virginia, and California. The researchers found the articles framed biosolids as a regulatory or legal issue most often, and most of the frames' tones were neutral (1,958). However, negative tone (507) happened three times more often than positive tone (149), and environmental, management, and public nuisance framing tended to be more negative than any of the other frames. Neither the frames themselves nor the tones had statistically significant changes over the past decade. Regarding the sources used in the stories, the most frequent source was local government officials, which were used twice as frequently as any other source, followed by corporations (16 percent) and citizens (14 percent). These findings should help biosolid producers and officials in developing a media strategy that is proactive toward shaping public opinion rather than reactive to an issue that makes its way to the media and spurs public concern.

Introduction

Throughout history, the ability to treat and distribute potable water and collect and treat wastewater has been essential to preserving public health and safety and protecting the environment. As of 2000, there were 16,255 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) serving approximately 207.8 million people in the United States (USEPA, 2000a: 3-3). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 275 million people will be served by a POTW by 2016 (USEPA, 2000b: B-3). With the nation's increasing dependence on centralized wastewater treatment facilities, the disposal or re-use of wastewater has become a critical issue in many communities.

The two primary products of wastewater treatment are the liquid effluent, and the semisolid residual material known as treated sewage sludge or biosolids. To create these products, most domestic wastewater treatment involves the synthesis of several physical, biological and chemical processes. The primary biological process, known as activated sludge, involves providing a favorable environment for microorganisms to breakdown the incoming waste stream. Once the microorganisms have consumed the waste, the biomass is separated through clarification or decanting resulting in treated water and a semi-solid residual. The treated water is often discharged to a water body, used for industrial purposes, or supplied for irrigation in accordance with applicable regulations. The semi-solid residuals, or biosolids, undergo treatment and are typically land applied as fertilizer, incinerated, or land-filled (see [START_REF] Tchobanoglous | Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse[END_REF] for a comprehensive discussion of wastewater treatment).

In the United States, the use and disposal of treated biosolids are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under 40 CFR Part 503. The 503 regulations separate biosolids into two classifications: Class A and Class B. The primary distinction between the two classes is the allowable densities of pathogens (disease-causing organisms) in the treated sewage sludge. If pathogens are below detectable levels, the biosolids meet the Class A designation. Biosolids meeting the Class B requirements have been treated to reduce pathogens to levels beyond the threat to public health and the environment (USEPA, 2003: 14). Class A biosolids have no disposal restrictions, whereas the disposal of Class B biosolids is restricted to prevent the public's exposure until natural processes such as heat, sunlight, desiccation, and microbial competition further reduce pathogens to protective levels (USEPA, 2003: 15).

The EPA estimates that approximately 6.9 million dry tons of biosolids were generated in 1998 of which approximately 60 percent were re-used through composting, land application, or other beneficial uses (USEPA, 1999: 2). The volume of biosolids produced from municipal wastewater treatment will escalate to 8.2 million dry tons by 2010, increasing the percentage of biosolids beneficially re-used to 70 percent (USEPA, 1999: 2). Of the 6.9 million dry tons, approximately 2.8 million dry tons are Class B biosolids and land applied (USEPA, 1999: 26). The demand for more land application sites continues to grow with the increasing volume of biosolids.

The beneficial properties of biosolids as soil amendment are well recognized, but land application of biosolids is often hindered by the lack of public acceptance (USEPA, 1999: 38-9). Throughout the 1990s, public acceptance efforts stressed proactively communicating with the public and its "gatekeepers" by conveying scientific data and information on the beneficial uses of biosolids (Beecher et al., 2004: I-2). In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of the 503 regulations and concluded that biosolids recycling involved minimal risk (NRC, 1996). Although biosolids producers used the report to support their activities and gain acceptance, public opposition continued and became more organized and involved at the local, state and federal levels. In 2002, the National Research Council surmised that "there is no documented scientific evidence that the Part 503 rules has failed to protect public health. However, additional scientific work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for adverse human health effects from the exposure to biosolids" (NRC, 2002: 4). This overarching finding has further galvanized both supporters for and opponents of biosolids land applications.

The ability to market biosolids and their beneficial re-use to the public is a driving force in addressing the growing need for treatment and disposal of the public's wastewater. Although public education focused on scientific results has increased public acceptance, it has also increased the public's skepticism about the risks of biosolids to public health and the environment (Beecher et al., 2004: I-9). The biosolids industry is recognizing that continued public acceptance is gained through building relationships and earning public trust (Beecher et al., 2004: I-15). Organizations such as the National Biosolids Partnership 1 are developing programs focused on developing environmental management systems for biosolids producers to implement with the goals of earning public confidence and gaining public acceptance through responsible management (USEPA, 1999: 33). As with other industries with perceived risk, shaping public perception is a critical component of gaining public trust and acceptance (e.g., [START_REF] Siegrist | Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge[END_REF][START_REF] Wakefield | Constructing the News: The Role of Local Newspapers in Environmental Risk Communication[END_REF][START_REF] Lindsay | Factors Influencing Resident Attitudes Regarding the Land Application of Biosolids[END_REF][START_REF] Goldstein | National Overview of Biosolids Management[END_REF][START_REF] Logan | Gaining Public Acceptance for Beneficial Use of Biosolids[END_REF]. Generally, when the public evaluates risk, they use qualitative factors such as dreaded outcome, unfamiliarity, catastrophic potential, feeling of involuntariness, and uncertainty about the future, and these factors will heighten their risk perceptions [START_REF] Wakefield | Constructing the News: The Role of Local Newspapers in Environmental Risk Communication[END_REF][START_REF] Pidgeon | Public Health Communication and the Social Amplification of Risks: Present Knowledge and Future Prospects[END_REF][START_REF] Beecher | Public Perception of Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public Participation and Earning Trust[END_REF].

The media are one of the major influences on public perceptions and one of the main transmitters and sources of the public's risk information [START_REF] Bennett | Understanding Responses to Risk[END_REF][START_REF] Wakefield | Constructing the News: The Role of Local Newspapers in Environmental Risk Communication[END_REF][START_REF] Frewer | The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk[END_REF][START_REF] Lindsay | Factors Influencing Resident Attitudes Regarding the Land Application of Biosolids[END_REF]. For example, social amplification of risk theory suggests that the way the media cover an issue, including amount of coverage and/or the media's framing of the industry or event, is one of the most important determinants of the amplification or attenuation of perceptions of risk [START_REF] Kasperson | The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework[END_REF][START_REF] Pidgeon | Public Health Communication and the Social Amplification of Risks: Present Knowledge and Future Prospects[END_REF]. As [START_REF] Nelkin | Journalism and Science: The Creative Tension[END_REF] notes, the way the media cover an issue may affect how an industry is regulated, the outcomes of risk-related litigation, and the direction of research and development. Moreover, one of the most comprehensive overviews on the public's perceptions of biosolids said: "local newspapers have played a significant role in affecting public knowledge, opinions, perceptions, and behavior around local biosolids recycling programs" (Beecher et al., 2004: II-28).

Thus, from biosolids advocates' and producers' perspectives, studying the media's coverage and framing of biosolids is the vital first step toward understanding how the public's perception is formed and changed over time. Furthermore, few people have direct experience with environmental issues such as biosolids, most people receive their environmental news from the media, and researchers have found that the media's selection and emphasis on aspects of an issue define that issue for the public particularly when the public's level of personal experience with the topic is limited as is the case with biosolids (e.g., Salmone and [START_REF] Salomone | A Question of Quality: How Journalists and News Sources Evaluate Coverage of Environmental Risk[END_REF][START_REF] Nelkin | Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology[END_REF][START_REF] Greenberg | Network Television News Coverage of Environmental Risks[END_REF][START_REF] Hester | The Environment: TV News, Real-world Cues, and Public Opinion Over Time[END_REF][START_REF] Lundy | U.S. and British Media Framing of Agricultural Biotechnology[END_REF][START_REF] Bridges | Issues Management: A Relational Approach[END_REF]. Consequently, understanding how the media present biosolids to the public will provide a foundation for developing communication strategies to promote public relationships, earn public confidence and potentially gain public acceptance. The purpose of this paper, then, is to look at how the media frame biosolids for the public in order to develop better communication strategies for biosolids producers and advocates.

Media framing: a conceptual framework

Media framing focuses on the specific way issues are presented and how public issues are expressed to the audience [START_REF] Tankard | Media Frames: Approaches to Conceptualization and Measurement[END_REF][START_REF] Entman | Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm[END_REF]. As media researchers have noted, framing is the key to how journalists organize news [START_REF] Jamieson | Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good[END_REF]. Journalists must transform unusual or unfamiliar issues into easily understandable stories, and by doing so, they often present the issue(s) in familiar themes, or frames (Huxford, 2000: 188). Through their selective representation of certain aspects of an issue, frames provide audiences with a cognitive framework for understanding the issue. Thus, media frames privilege certain realities over others (e.g., [START_REF] Gamson | Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach[END_REF][START_REF] Entman | Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm[END_REF]. As Entman notes, the "analysis of frames illuminates the precise way in which influence over a human consciousness is exerted by the transfer (or communication) of information " (1993: 56). Therefore, framing provides a logical conceptual framework for exploring how the media define biosolids to the public because framing is fundamental to public opinion formation (e.g., [START_REF] Iyenger | News that Matters: Television and American Opinion[END_REF][START_REF] Brosius | The Agenda-setting Function of Television News: Static and Dynamic Views[END_REF][START_REF] Bridges | Issues Management: A Relational Approach[END_REF][START_REF] Gamson | News as Framing[END_REF][START_REF] Andsager | How Interest Groups Attempt to Shape Public Opinion with Competing News Frames[END_REF].

Even though framing "can observe recurring patterns in the news and can find a structure in its content" (Gans, 1979: 6), the conceptual definitions of frames and framing are often vague within this fragmented body of literature [START_REF] Scheufele | Framing as a Theory of Media Effects[END_REF][START_REF] Tankard | Media Frames: Approaches to Conceptualization and Measurement[END_REF][START_REF] Entman | Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm[END_REF]. Many framing theorists see framing as the selection and salience of attributes of an issue for inclusion on the media agenda, which is the tradition this paper will follow [START_REF] Entman | Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm[END_REF]. According to [START_REF] Entman | Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm[END_REF], "to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation" (p. 52), while [START_REF] Tankard | Media Frames: Approaches to Conceptualization and Measurement[END_REF] see "a frame [as] a central organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration" (p. 11). Thus, a media frame is an organizing idea that gives context and uses exclusion, selection, emphasis, and elaboration to talk about the issue. Its purpose is interpretational: to define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments, and suggest remedies [START_REF] Entman | Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm[END_REF].

According to [START_REF] Ghanem | Filling in the Tapestry: The Second Level of Agenda Setting[END_REF], there are four major dimensions to media frames: subtopic, or what is included in the frame; framing mechanisms such as size and placement; cognitive elements, or details of the subtopics; and affective elements, or tone. Given that "people evaluate information regarding uncertain (risky) alternatives in terms of either potential gains (positive framing) or potential losses (negative framing) and those preferences can be altered by changing the way information is presented" (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979: 267; also [START_REF] Grantham | An Ounce of Prevention: The Role of Critical Thinking and Message Frames in Addressing Low-involvement Environmental Risks[END_REF], this analysis was particularly interested in subtopics and affective elements.

Literature review

Many researchers agree that framing is important to risk communication because what is included and excluded often defines the issues and risks for the public thereby affecting their perceptions (e.g., [START_REF] Lundy | U.S. and British Media Framing of Agricultural Biotechnology[END_REF][START_REF] Bridges | Issues Management: A Relational Approach[END_REF][START_REF] Andsager | How Interest Groups Attempt to Shape Public Opinion with Competing News Frames[END_REF]. In fact, studies have found that audiences often think about issues as they are framed in the media [START_REF] Pan | Framing as a Strategic Action in Public Deliberation[END_REF]. In terms of science/health and environmental media framing studies, researchers have looked at issues ranging from manufacturing and nuclear power accidents and old-growth forests to nuclear power and water quality [START_REF] Palenchar | Media Coverage of Risk Events: A Framing of Comparison of Two Fatal Manufacturing Accidents[END_REF][START_REF] Gamson | Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach[END_REF][START_REF] Ryan | Risk Information for Public Consumption: Print Media Coverage of Two Risky Situations[END_REF][START_REF] Driedger | Different Frames, Different Fears: Communicating about Chlorinated Drinking Water and Cancer in the Canadian Media[END_REF][START_REF] Liebler | Old-growth Forests on Network News: News Sources and the Framing of an Environmental Controversy[END_REF].

Several framing studies have generally looked at how the media covered environmental, science and health issues. [START_REF] Griffin | Community Structure and Scientific Framing of News about Local Environmental Risks[END_REF] studied newspaper coverage of environmental risks and found that political or governmental frames were undoubtedly the most common frames. [START_REF] Collins | Science as News: The Emergence and Framing of Biodiversity[END_REF] looked at the concept of biological diversity in newspaper and magazine stories and found a limited set of commonly used frames. They found the most prominent frame to be the "Race Against the Clock frame," accounting for 61 percent of the stories. This frame focused on "a seemingly irreversible trend toward extinction" and inextricably linked humans to biodiversity (Collins and Kephart, 1995: 37). The next most commonly used frame was the Economy versus the Environment (23 percent). According to the authors, this frame pitted the economy against the environment by presenting them as an either-or proposition and tended to privilege the economy over the environment (pp. 38-9). The final frame, Political Wrangling, found in 16 percent of the stories, explored how biodiversity was used by various presidencies for political gain. [START_REF] Driedger | Different Frames, Different Fears: Communicating about Chlorinated Drinking Water and Cancer in the Canadian Media[END_REF] studied the framing of chlorinated drinking water in Canada and its potential link to cancer. The media mostly framed chlorine as causing cancer (76 articles) followed by chlorine saves lives (37), chlorine is the "hearse" option of disinfection (13), and chlorine is a dangerous time bomb (12) [START_REF] Driedger | Different Frames, Different Fears: Communicating about Chlorinated Drinking Water and Cancer in the Canadian Media[END_REF]Eyles, 2003: 1288). However, in the 76 cancer-related articles, 34 mentioned somewhere that chlorination was protective and prevents illness, but the other articles didn't emphasize its necessity and 15 cases mentioned no chlorination benefits. [START_REF] Spratt | Science, Journalism, and the Construction of News: How Print Media Framed the 1918 Influenza Pandemic[END_REF] analyzed the New York Times and three magazines: Scientific American, Science, and The Survey for their framing of the 1918 flu epidemic. She found that three of the four publications framed the epidemic as government fighting to control flu from spreading, whereas Scientific American framed it "as one between men of science and biological forces" (Spratt, 2001: 74). Yet, all the publications used biomilitaristic language highlighting man battling disease.

Rather than creating a list of commonly used media frames, [START_REF] Huxford | Framing the Future: Science Fiction Frames and the Press Coverage of Cloning[END_REF] studied the use of a specific type of frame-science fiction frames-in the media's coverage of cloning. In 204 articles on cloning from Britain and the US, the author found that science fiction frames were present in 46 percent of the stories. The most commonly used science fiction frame was based on Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, which was used in 33 percent of the stories employing science fiction frames, followed by Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, with 21 references, and the movie The Boys from Brazil with 13 references. According to Huxford, the Frankenstein frame emphasized science out of control, whereas Brave New World emphasized controlled science (2000: 196). Furthermore, the newspaper frames dealt with fears surrounding cloning rather than examples or the actual act of cloning.

In looking at the general framing of science, health, and environmental stories, these studies showed a cross-study pattern of framing. The first frame tended to deal with political or governmental aspects, in particular how the government used the crisis or issue in the political arena or how the government was involved. Another commonality was the use of a danger or risk frame that emphasized the issue or event as endangering humans or the environment. The final commonality was a man versus nature frame. This frame described the issue or event as involving control whether it is man's lack of control over the situation or man's attempt to control the situation.

Aside from general framing findings, studies have shown that sources influence the type of media frames used. For example, [START_REF] Miller | Swamped in Politics: News Coverage of Wetlands in Three Presidential Administrations[END_REF] showed that wetland frames changed for the Bush, Reagan, and Clinton administrations. [START_REF] Liebler | Old-growth Forests on Network News: News Sources and the Framing of an Environmental Controversy[END_REF] found in their study of the major television networks' coverage of the preservation of spotted owls and old-growth forests that most of the sources used a pro-cut frame four times more often than a pro-save frame, particularly when the sources emphasized economic conditions or traditional lifestyles. However, if the source was talking about scientific evidence or ethics, then a pro-save frame was used. Furthermore, the authors found that the reporter wrap-ups used the pro-cut frame four times more frequently than the pro-save frame, mimicking the source frames. Thus, it is likely that source usage will affect the type of frames reporters use.

Biosolids and public perception

Regarding this paper's specific issue, biosolids, there have been relatively few studies on biosolids and public perception. During the 1990s when biosolids became a more salient issue, local pockets of negative publicity due to poor biosolids' management or accusations of harm largely characterized the local public's perceptions (Beecher et al., 2004: II-6).

Then, in 1995 and 1997, the publication of Toxic Sludge is Good for You [START_REF] Stauber | Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry[END_REF] and "The Case for Caution: Recommendations for Land Application of Sewage Sludge" [START_REF] Harrison | The Case for Caution: Recommendations for Land Application of Sewage Sludge and an Appraisal of the US EPA's Part 503 Sludge Rules[END_REF] increased national public concern as well as producing a growth in media attention (Beecher et al., 2004: II-7). Since these publications 10 years ago, Dr. David Lewis's accusations against biosolids research have again heightened public concern. Lewis, a former EPA scientist, published papers that were critical of biosolids and theorized that they were causing serious health problems for those living near application sites. [START_REF] Lindsay | Factors Influencing Resident Attitudes Regarding the Land Application of Biosolids[END_REF] conducted a more systematic and comprehensive study of a local group's perceptions of biosolids. They found New Hampshire residents' perceptions of the economic benefits, negative impacts, and potential risks influenced acceptance of biosolids. The residents' support of biosolids also was inversely related to the number of biosolids stories in the media. Thus, the authors concluded: "the media needs to ensure that its reports . . . are accurate and reliable" (Lindsay et al., 2000: 94).

More recently, Beecher et al. ( 2004) conducted a nationwide survey on biosolids. They found the public supported biosolids recycling when there were clear benefits such as recycling nutrients or creating renewable energy. Their levels of concern were amplified when biosolids included industrial wastes or were from large cities such as New York but were attenuated when biosolids were supervised locally or they knew about the recycling program beforehand. They also distrusted any biosolids sources that had a profit motive.

Method

Because the framing of an issue often dictates people's definition of that issue and its risks, the framing of biosolids in the media is fundamental to public opinion [START_REF] Andsager | How Interest Groups Attempt to Shape Public Opinion with Competing News Frames[END_REF]. Therefore, the following research questions were explored: how did the media define biosolids; how often did the media define the various classes of biosolids; how did the media frame biosolids; did these frames change over time; what was the tone of the major frames used; and did the tone change over time? Moreover, researchers have said that sources are allowed to control story frames (Dunwoody and Peters, 1993: 46; see also [START_REF] Corbett | The Environment as Theme and Package on a Local Television Newscast[END_REF][START_REF] Dunwoody | The Credible Scientific Source[END_REF], so the researchers also looked at what sources were used.

To explore the research questions, a framing content analysis was conducted on newspaper articles from Florida, California, and Virginia from 1995 to 2004. 2 These states were chosen because, according to the USEPA, they represent some of the hotbeds of public debate between biosolid producers and public perception (J. Smith, 2004, personal communication). The time frame was chosen to match the period relating to federal regulatory changes with biosolids and to capture the period when biosolids become an environmental issue in each of the three states.

Articles were collected from the Lexis/Nexis database using full text searches with the following keywords: biosolid, sewage sludge, and sewage w/in 10 sludge. The researchers eliminated articles with fewer than 100 words, duplicate articles, articles that were indirectly related to biosolids such as sludge spills on highways or organic food articles, which only mentioned biosolids once, and opinion pieces. 3 Thus, only articles that directly related to the recycling or disposal of biosolids were included for a total of 262 articles.

According to Tankard (2001: 102), the steps involved in a framing study are as follows: "Make the range of possible frames explicit, put the various possible frames in a manifest list, develop keywords, catchphrases and symbols to help detect each frame, 4 use the frames in the list as categories in a content analysis, and get coders to code articles into categories." Following this protocol, the researchers randomly chose 10 percent of the articles to qualitatively develop a list of all the possible frames. This range of possible frames was used to code each story for the frame's presence. The researchers used Tankard's (2001: 101) framing mechanisms when coding each story for the frames' presences such as headlines, subheads, sources, quotations, concluding statements, and paragraphs of articles. When multiple frames were used in a story, the coders determined a primary frame (the most prominent frame throughout the story) and a secondary frame. Second, the researchers coded each article for the primary and secondary frames' tones. Because sometimes there is a mixture of tones within a given frame, the coders rated each paragraph in the article for tone and then averaged the scores [START_REF] Tankard | The Empirical Approach to the Study of Media Framing[END_REF]. 5 The researchers, a mass communication researcher and an environmental engineer who specializes in biosolids, found 13 substantive frames: regulatory, litigation, farm, urban versus rural, public nuisance, health and safety, disposal, environment, economic, public perception, management, research, and debate (see Appendix A for descriptions). Tone was determined from the public's viewpoint: would this item alarm me (negative), comfort me (positive), or neither (neutral)? In addition to the frames, two independent coders coded for: newspaper name, state came from, page and section number, sources cited, and associated risks (see Appendix B for coding sheet).

Next, the researchers randomly chose 15 percent of the articles to establish intercoder reliability, which was p = .87, and confirm the original frame list. Finally, the two trained coders coded the population.

Analysis

Of the 262 articles analyzed, most were relatively short, either 0-499 words (43 percent) or 500-9999 words (43 percent). Section B (51 percent) had the most articles followed by A (16 percent) with more articles appearing on the front page (43 percent) than elsewhere. Wednesday was the most frequent day for biosolid articles to run (26 percent), followed by Tuesday (16 percent), Thursday (13 percent), Friday and Saturday (11 percent each), Sunday (9 percent), and Monday (6 percent). 6 As for the breakdown of articles by year, 2002 had the most (20 percent), followed by 2001 (18 percent), 1998 (12 percent), 2000 (11 percent), 1997 and 2003 (8 percent each), 2004 (7 percent), 1995 and 1996 (6 percent each), and 1999 (5 percent). Furthermore, more articles came from California (52 percent) than from either Florida (19 percent) or Virginia (21 percent). There also was a dominance of biosolid articles in three papers: the Press Enterprise from Riverside, California (34 percent), the Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch (13 percent), and the Sarasota (FL) Herald (12 percent).

The first research asked how the media defined biosolids. In the 262 articles, only 45 (17 percent) provided a definition of biosolids, and most of those definitions came from four newspapers: Sarasota Herald (31 percent), Press Enterprise (22 percent), Richmond Times-Dispatch (18 percent), and the Associated Press wire service (11 percent). The definitions of biosolids varied based on the amount of information given in the definition and the positive or negative connotation of the definition. Many simply defined biosolids as "sewage sludge," "treated waste," "treated human excrement," "the dirt-like byproduct of sewage treatment," or a "mix of industrial and human waste." Others provided more specific information such as "the byproduct of a treatment process that removes fecal matter, foodstuffs, and other solids from wastewater," "treated sewer solids including human waste, paper products and ground-up vegetables," or "a mix of human and industrial waste used as fertilizer on nonedible crops." Within this range of definitions of biosolids, some newspapers defined it with a more positive or negative slant. Most of these types of definitions tended to be more negative such as: "pungent, dark sludge," "unsavory goop," "smelly muck," or "thick tar-like sludge that is laced with pathogens and stinks to high heaven." There were a few definitions that had more of a positive spin including "earthy, nutrient-rich byproduct of sewage treatment" or "usable product made from sewage sludge." Similar to the instance in which biosolids were defined by the media, there were few instances where articles addressed and defined the various classes of biosolids. Of the 262 articles, only 32 (8 percent) defined any of the classes of biosolids. Again, most of these came from a handful of newspapers: 53 percent from the Sarasota Herald, 16 percent from the Press Enterprise, and 6 percent each from the Daily News of Los Angeles and the Palm Beach Post.

Regarding the actual framing of biosolids, the researchers conducted a factor analysis to group together like frames because the list of frames was so large and many consistently overlapped each other (Table 1). The factor analysis was remarkably clean and yielded five factors: environment/research (Env/Res), disposal/economic (Dis/Econ), management/public perception/public nuisance (Man/PP/PN), regulation/legal/debate (Reg/Leg/Deb), and farm/ urban versus rural/health and safety (Farm/UR/HS). Each of these frames made sense to both coders from a qualitative standpoint as well.

The third research question asked how the media framed biosolids. According to Table 2, two frames constituted the overall frame for 75 percent of the stories-Reg/Leg/Deb (N = 128; 49 percent of stories) and Man/PP/PN (N = 70; 27 percent of stories). After these frames, the remaining frames broke down as follows: Farm/UR/HS (N = 25; 10 percent of stories), Dis/Econ (N = 23; 9 percent of stories), and Env/Res (N = 13; 5 percent of stories). As for use of secondary frames, three frames were essentially equally present and made up 75 percent of the secondary frames: Farm/UR/HS (N = 63; 26 percent), Man/PP/PN (N = 62; 26 percent), and Reg/Leg/Deb (N = 59; 24 percent). Thus, most journalists framed biosolids as a legal/regulatory issue or explored the effects on the public.

The next research question asked if the frames changed over time. There was no The fifth research question asked what the overall frames' tones were. Overall there were 149 instances of positive framing (M = .58, SD = 1.3), 1,958 instances of neutral framing (M = 7.56, SD = 5.62), and 507 instances of negative framing (M = 2.0, SD = 3.02). Although most framing was neutral, negative framing happened three times as often as positive framing. Env/Res (M = 1.75, SD = .22) and Man/PP/PN (M = 1.76, SD = .36) tended to be slightly more negative than Dis/Econ (M = 2.1, SD = .3), Reg/Leg/Deb (M = 1.93, SD = .19), and Farm/UR/HS (M = 1.91, SD = .3), which all tended to be purely neutral on average.

Table 3 shows the frequency of the average tone for each frame. 8 Four of the five frames had the majority of their stories having a neutral tone with the exception of Man/PP/ PN, which had 45 percent neutral (as measured from 1.76 to 2.25). Man/PP/PN also had the greatest percentage of negative frames, accounting for one-quarter of its occurrences (range was 1-1.5) and Reg/Leg/Deb and Dis/Econ had the fewest (2.7 percent and 4 percent respectively). Regarding positive framing, Env/Res was never positively framed and Reg/ Leg/Deb was rarely positively framed (4.7 percent) compared to approximately one-third of the Dis/Econ framing.

The next research question asked if the tone of the frames changed over time. The oneway ANOVA showed that the tone did not change over time (F = .875, df = 9, p = n.s.).

The final research question looked at the sources used. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics for sources. The most frequent source was local government officials, which were used twice as frequently as any other source. Corporations (16 percent) and citizens (14 percent) were roughly equivalent in their mentioning followed by utilities with 9 percent. Note: 1 = negative, 2 = neutral, 3 = positive; % of frame's total appearance.

Part of the reason corporations were frequent sources was that many of the articles from California dealt with controversies surrounding one corporation, Synagro, that disposes of municipal biosolids.

Discussion

In looking at the media framing results and thinking about them in terms of how biosolids producers and advocates can develop communication strategies to promote public relationships, earn public confidence, and ultimately gain public acceptance, there were several interesting findings and points to be made. First, few articles provided a definition of biosolids, and when it was provided, the definitions were inadequate, potentially misleading, or often times negative sounding. Describing biosolids as "sewage sludge" doesn't provide enough information or context for the average citizen. It is doubtful that most people know or understand that wastewater is more than human waste, and from these types of definitions, most will think the article is talking about human excrement only, which already has the perception of being foul and disease-ridden. Moreover, biosolids are treated sewage sludge that, according to government set standards, has greatly reduced or no pathogens left. When articles use descriptions such as "a mix of industrial and human waste," the industrial waste reference is quite vague and potentially misleading. Again, many are likely to have negative associations with the term "industrial waste" seeing industrial waste as synonymous for toxic waste, meaning it is a non-reusable contaminant that pollutes our environment and endangers human health.

Other definitions were simply pejorative in calling biosolids "unsavory" or "smelly." These types of definitions already paint an unpleasant picture in a reader's mind, and they may well cause a reader to tune out the benefits of biosolids. A few of the other definitions tended to be misleading. When an article says that biosolids are "full of pathogens," it implies that these are non-removable and biosolids are inherently dangerous. Given that people tend to remember the first and last things they read [START_REF] Parkin | Memory: Phenomena, Experiment, and Theory[END_REF] and that many of these definitions occur early in the story, it is likely that all readers remember are that biosolids are "full of pathogens" or "unsavory" regardless of what the rest of the article says. More comprehensive definitions that explain what constitutes biosolids, that explain biosolids are treated to regulated standards that protect human health and safety, and that convey the environmental and agronomic benefits of biosolids could help greatly with their image in the public's mind.

From the biosolids communication strategists' perspective, they cannot control how the media choose, or don't choose, to define biosolids. However, they can emphasize a more comprehensive definition to the public and media in their materials and ensure that biosolids advocates use comprehensive definitions when speaking to both the public and the media. Furthermore, given the large number of local government sources quoted in the media, strategists should emphasize the intricacies of biosolids, from a definitional standpoint, with these potentially influential sources.

Aside from the lack of defining biosolids, the researchers found that the most common overall frames were Reg/Leg/Deb and Man/PP/PN and the most common secondary frames were Reg/Leg/Deb, Man/PP/PN and Farm/UR/HS. The fact that these frames were the most common is not surprising given that all involve the conflict news value, one of the most frequently found news values in environmental stories and an impetus for most environmental issues coverage [START_REF] Curtin | It's Not Easy Being Green: Building the News Media Agenda on the Environment[END_REF][START_REF] Bennett | Understanding Responses to Risk[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | Interest Group Strategies and Journalistic Norms: News Media Framing of Environmental Issues[END_REF].

In looking at these frames, the biosolids industry has direct control of management practices and regulatory compliance. The results support the effort within the industry to develop environmental management systems that provide an organizational framework for advancing good management practices and maintaining regulatory compliance (National Biosolids Partnership, "Mission Statement," www.biosolids.org). Another point of interest is that the Env/Res frame was the least likely to appear. Thus, the industry's investment in the science supporting the environmental benefits of biosolids is the topic least likely to be used by the media in communicating biosolids-related issues to the public.

The next research question asked if the frames changed over time. There was no significant change in the frames from 1995 to 2004. These results are surprising given that many longitudinal framing studies show some variation in frames over time (e.g., [START_REF] Gamson | Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach[END_REF]. Unfortunately for the biosolids communication strategists, the results reflect their inability to shift the public message to frames within their control and that potentially will support the beneficial uses of biosolids such as management, research, environment, economics, and disposal. However, the static nature of the frames provides the foundation for formulating a media strategy for biosolids. Since the key issues to be reported are known, preparation for media interviews should address these topics within the frames that are likely to emerge in the media coverage. In other words, when biosolids advocates use the common media frames, their quotations and information neatly fit within the journalists' framing of the situation potentially increasing the likelihood and frequency of journalists using the advocates' quotations, arguments, and general information.

Another focus of the research was to analyze tone. As with the media frames, the articles' tones surprisingly did not change over time. Since many longitudinal framing studies show some variation in frames' tones over time (e.g., [START_REF] Gamson | Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach[END_REF] and there are efforts from the biosolids advocacy and opposition camps to shape tone, the results were unexpected. Moreover, negative framing happened three times as often as positive framing with Man/PP/PN having the greatest percentage of negative occurrences. The Man/PP/PN and the Env/Res tended to be the most negative. Env/Res was never positively framed and Reg/Leg/Deb was rarely positively framed although on the whole it was neutrally framed. The results again point to the importance of management and the industry's ineffective communication on the research and environmental aspects supporting biosolids. Good management equates to regulatory compliance. When biosolids are regulated appropriately, stories about poor management will not occur, which can only improve the industry's public image. However, it is unlikely that any amount of public relations efforts will remedy the public nuisance (i.e., odor, dust, flies) aspect to the Man/PP/PN frame.

Regarding the Env/Res negative tone, it may be a reflection of the media and the public's lack of knowledge, breeding skepticism of the biosolids industry as described by [START_REF] Beecher | Public Perception of Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public Participation and Earning Trust[END_REF]. Moreover, many times when this particular frame was negative, it was all from one source, a man the media called a "whistleblower," about what he perceived as inaccurate biosolids data. In terms of news values, this whistleblower will continue to be used as a source because he adds to the conflict of the issue. From the biosolids advocates' standpoint, the best they can do is push the numerous governmental and industry studies (WEF, 2005;USEPA, 2005) that demonstrate the benefits of properly managed biosolids land application and that show current regulations protect human health with the hopes that the media will balance this information with the whistleblower's information (NRC, 2002: 4).

The final research question looked at sources. The most frequent were local government followed by corporation and citizens. Other researchers have also found that most environmental sources tend to be from the government (e.g., [START_REF] Liebler | Old-growth Forests on Network News: News Sources and the Framing of an Environmental Controversy[END_REF][START_REF] Taylor | Local Press Coverage of Environmental Conflict[END_REF]. Furthermore, the high use of local governmental officials reveals them to be key gatekeepers. The biosolids industry needs to maintain relationships with these key public opinion leaders and nurture their understanding of biosolids in the hope that they will convey a balanced, scientifically based message to the media when interviewed for biosolids-related stories.

As for why the second most frequent source was corporate, many of the articles from California dealt with controversies surrounding Synagro, who disposes of municipal biosolids. Regarding the citizens, in most cases their statements were negative since most lived near a composting plant; their complaints were about odor or ill health effects that they linked to their proximity to biosolids.

The increasing need to treat and dispose of the US's biosolids is a critical issue faced by wastewater utilities. Although the wastewater and biosolids industry have invested in the science and technology that treat waste to levels the government has deemed protective of human health and demonstrated the beneficial uses of biosolids, lack of public acceptance is a primary factor in shaping the future of the wastewater utilities and their biosolids operations. The industry is beginning to understand that controversy regarding biosolids is more about the values and the interests of individuals and not about actual science (Jockers and Saroka, 2003: 6), and it is attempting to gain public acceptance through good management and public partnering in its research agenda (National Biosolids Partnership, www.biosolids.org;[START_REF] Dixon | Proceedings from the Biosolids Research Summit[END_REF][START_REF] Beecher | Public Perception of Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public Participation and Earning Trust[END_REF]. The results of this research support this direction.

However, public perception is reality [START_REF] Logan | Gaining Public Acceptance for Beneficial Use of Biosolids[END_REF], and media framing is a major influence in shaping public perception [START_REF] Lindsay | Factors Influencing Resident Attitudes Regarding the Land Application of Biosolids[END_REF][START_REF] Goldstein | National Overview of Biosolids Management[END_REF][START_REF] Logan | Gaining Public Acceptance for Beneficial Use of Biosolids[END_REF] especially for a generally obscure, low-involvement topic such as biosolids. Therefore, understanding the media's role in gaining public acceptance will be a critical component to earning the public's trust and conveying the industry's emphasis on management. Knowing the persistent frames and the tones of these frames related to biosolids can be used to 3 The authors eliminated opinion pieces because their purpose differs from that of news pieces (with opinion attempting to sway the audience and news presenting both sides in the most objective manner possible) and because of format differences. 4 The researchers also used Entman's suggestion of looking for "sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgments" to detect/identify frames (1993: 52). 5 The researchers justified coding each paragraph because a single word or phrase can work "as a cue that draws in an entire string of narrative and ideological themes, values and opinions" (i.e., frames) (Huxford, 2000: 188). 6 The percentages do not total 100% for several of these categories because there were wire articles that had no day of the week, page number, etc. 7 There were multiple cells with five or fewer observations. Because the results were insignificant under these conditions, no further collapsing of data was necessary. 8 This was calculated by multiplying the number of times a given tone was found by 1 (for negative), 2 (for neutral) or 3 (for positive). Thus a story with three instances of positive framing for Env/Res was coded as 9.

Table 1 .

 1 Factor analysis of frames-rotated component matrix a change in the overall and secondary frames from 1995 to 2004 (χ 2 = 48.189, df = 36, p < .05 and χ 2 = 46.703, df = 36, p < .05 respectively). 7

				Component
		1	2	3	4	5
	Public nuisance	-.090	-.060	.686	-.034	.041
	Regulation	.069	-.037	-.022	.712	.264
	Environment	.800	-.092	.034	-.092	-.026
	Health and safety	.366	-.011	-.019	.209	.580
	Public perception	.071	-.031	.740	-.047	.069
	Disposal	.067	.762	.024	.030	.170
	Research	.851	.013	-.098	.109	.144
	Economic	-.111	.792	.004	-.135	-.104
	Management	-.077	.419	.648	.207	-.074
	Debate	.435	.148	-.041	.544	.068
	Legal	-.161	-.143	.073	.586	-.220
	Farmers	.070	.174	.016	.107	.716
	Urban versus rural	-.159	-.157	.119	-.275	.532

Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. a Rotation converged in six iterations. significant

Table 2 .

 2 Overall and secondary framing in biosolids stories

					Percent of
			Percent of	Frequency as	stories as
		Frequency as	stories as	secondary	secondary
	Variable	overall frame	overall frame	frame	frame
	Env/Res	13	5%	21	9%
	Dis/Econ	23	9%	38	16%
	Man/PP/PN	70	27%	62	26%
	Reg/Leg/Deb	128	49%	59	24%
	Farm/UR/HS	25	10%	63	26%

Table 3 .

 3 Frequency of average tones per frame

	Average tone	Env/Res	Dis/Econ	Man/PP/PN	Reg/Leg/Deb	Farm/UR/HS
	1-1.25	1 (7%)	1 (4%)	5 (7%)	1 (.7%)	1 (4%)
	1.26-1.5	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	13 (18%)	3 (2%)	2 (8%)
	1.51-1.75	4 (31%)	1 (4%)	18 (25%)	18 (14%)	4 (17%)
	1.76-2.0	7 (54%)	12 (52%)	29 (41%)	96 (75%)	11 (46%)
	2.01-2.25	0 (0%)	3 (13%)	3 (4%)	4 (3%)	3 (12.5%)
	2.26-2.5	0 (0%)	6 (26%)	1 (1%)	5 (4%)	3 (12.5%)
	2.51-2.75	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	0 (0%)	1 (.7%)	0 (0%)
	2.76-3.0	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

Table 4 .

 4 Descriptive statistics for sources used

							Percent of
							total sources
	Source type	Frequency	Mean	SD	Min.	Max.	used
	Local government	392	1.5	1.9	0	14	28%
	State government	66	.27	.85	0	7	4.8%
	Federal government	52	.20	.69	0	5	3.8%
	Environmental or interest groups	57	.22	.76	0	6	4.1%
	Farmers	65	.25	1.01	0	9	4.7%
	Educational institutions	23	.09	.48	0	4	1.7%
	Corporations	225	.86	1.6	0	9	16.3%
	Utility	119	.46	1.3	0	8	8.6%
	Trade organizations	3	.02	.15	0	2	.2%
	Citizens	189	.72	1.34	0	8	13.7%
	Non-affiliated scientist/expert	49	.19	1.09	0	11	3.6%
	Government scientist/expert	19	.07	.46	0	6	1.4%
	Legal professional	99	.38	1.01	0	6	7.2%
	Medical professional	9	.03	.24	0	2	.7%
	Other	11	.04	.25	0	2	.8%

  News sources (list number of times cited for each):Frames used (note frequency and tone-positive/claming, neutral/balanced, negative/ alarming) a global attitude measure consisting of six 7-interval scales, including: negative/ positive, foolish/wise, worthless/valuable, unacceptable/acceptable, bad/good, and unfavorable/favorable.Notes1 The National Biosolids Partnership (www.biosolids.org) is an alliance formed in 1997 of the Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, the Water Environment Federation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2 1994 was dropped from the analysis because it only yielded two articles.

	Local government
	State government
	Federal government
	Environmental/interest groups
	Farmers
	Educational institutions
	Corporation
	Utility
	Trade organization
	General public
	Non-affiliated scientist/expert
	Government scientist/expert
	Legal professional
	Medical professional
	Other

Public Understanding of Science 15 (3)

develop a media strategy that is proactive towards shaping public perception rather than reactive to an issue that makes its way to the media and spurs public concern.

Future research should look at whether this emphasis on environmental management and stakeholder involvement promoted by organizations such as the National Biosolids Partnership will result in a variation towards frames and tones favorable to the industry in the media and an increase in public acceptance.

Appendix