15. Argumentation across Web-based organizational discourses: The case of climate change

How to save the world : the ideologies of four ENGOs and their discursive constructions of climate change

“…They find that NGOs still rely heavily on the discourse of science in constructing the issue, using it rhetorically by extending the boundaries of science to meet their own interests. Mentioned earlier, Smart's (2011) study also confirms the frequent use of science in climate change discourse, and a study of media texts by Carvalho (2007) discusses the prevalence of science discourse in a diachronic analysis of newspaper articles in the United Kingdom. Though Eden, Walker, and Donaldson (2006) note the common use of science discourse in environmental debates, they, among other researchers, recognize that science is no longer seen as the "value-free, objective enterprise it often prides itself as being" (Schneider, 2001, p. 338), an idea that has been embraced by some and fiercely resisted by others.…”

“…The types of discourse found in discussions of the environment depend greatly on the social actors involved and the issue being addressed. In the case o f climate change, researchers have found a combination of many discourses employed, such as scientific, political, and ethical (Hulme, 2009;Scollon, 2008;Smart, 2011 (Gee, 2008), might present difficulties in understanding climate change. Hulme finds that the discourses of science, economics, psychology, media, development, and governance, though in diverse combinations, are present in climate change discourse.…”

Understanding intractable environmental policy conflicts: the case of the village that would not fall quietly into the sea

“…This relationship, with different actors competing at a social level to influence opinion at an individual level, offers a useful way to understand conflicts over complex environmental issues. Such a conceptualisation resonates in the work of Smart (), who examined argumentation across web‐based organisations on the issue of climate change. He shows that clusters of organisations, whilst not attempting to engage each other in a constructive manner, are highly involved, discursively seeking to advance or counter specific arguments with the intention of winning support.…”

“…The opposing views (hierarchical and egalitarian) at different scales (national and local) reveal fundamental differences in the perception and understanding of issues associated with coastal erosion. In his study of organisational discourse, Smart () shows that it is virtually impossible to ‘convince’ the opposing party of the validity and legitimacy of the proponents’ views as the two discourses are mutually structured and antagonistic. Furthermore, the polarised nature of the debate appears to exclude other perspectives that are present, but not well represented.…”

“…This line of reasoning is supported by Brewer and Gross () who argue that frames carry an evaluative implication, in that one perspective is presented as inherently right and other viewpoints as wrong. Similarly, Smart (), analysing argumentation across web‐based organisational coalitions, shows that opposed positions are often highly engaged discursively, monitoring and responding to each others’ arguments. This helps to explain how certain matters (dredging for example) can seem deeply significant for one group and insignificant for another, contributing to the intractability of issues (Schön and Rein ; Fletcher ).…”