How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet: a multi‐level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes

Abstract

Drawing on qualitative data from a longitudinal case study of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in southern Ecuador, we study how multiple actors, including university experts, development organizations and local communities, make sense of the issues from different perspectives through the process of issue framing. Starting from an analysis of the actors' usual issue frames, we point out their differences in selecting aspects, connecting them and drawing boundaries around the issues. Bringing in the time dimension leads us to consider how changing patterns of actor involvement and evolving frame configurations mutually influence each other. In a third step, we zoom in on the here-and-now level of ongoing interaction using discourse analysis, outlining an interactive, communicative and discursive approach to dealing with differences in issue framing. We identify various ways of dealing with these differences and argue that approaching them constructively by tuning the different frames into a mutually acceptable configuration is an important challenge for any attempt at integrated management of natural resources.

Pescadores, conhecimento local e mudanças costeiras no litoral Português

“…Uma estrutura de poder administrativo que valoriza o conhecimento credenciado, legitimado por graus académicos, recusa reconhecer a validade do conhecimento empírico dos pescadores, que não está registado por escrito e é transmitido oralmente, em aprendizagens intergeracionais (Wynne, 1992;Berkes et al, 2000). Assim, verifica-se que os interlocutores operam segundo diferentes "enquadramentos" das questões (Dewulf et al, 2004), parecendo quase que não falam a mesma língua.…”

“…Wynne (1992) sobre os pastores da Cumbria e contaminação radioativa de Chernobyl, até ao trabalho de Fortmann & Ballard (2009) sobre a combinação de conhecimento entre cientistas profissionais e peritos locais (cientistas "civis") na gestão de florestas, passando pelo estudo de Dewulf et al (2004) sobre a colaboração entre agricultores e académicos numa iniciativa de conservação do solo no Equador ou de Aitken (2009) sobre os debates em torno da localização de um parque eólico na Escócia. De uma natureza diferente é a comparação de três sistemas de conhecimento diferentes, indígena da américa do norte, neo-indígena no Japão e ciência "eurocêntrica" efetuada por Aikenhead & Ogawa (2007) ou a revisão de literatura sobre a integração entre conhecimento indígena e ciência e respetivas implicações sobre a criação ou manutenção da resiliência dos sistemas socio-ecológicos de Bohensky & Maru (2011).…”

Exploring the Role of Relational Practices in Water Governance Using a Game-Based Approach

“…A greater challenge arises in regard to framing and reframing issues, e.g., when different actors, by definition, take different perspectives on issues. This is often the core problem in interdisciplinary projects related to natural resources [17]. Difficulties in creating co-ownership of the solution among all parties may occur even if the interactions among the parties are very intensive and well-guided [18].…”

Building on uncertainty: how to cope with incomplete knowledge, unpredictability and ambiguity in ecological engineering projects

“…knowledge during the framing process, the activity through which the meaning of a situation is negotiated among different actors (Putnam and Holmer, 1992;Gray, 2003;Dewulf et al, 2004). So, in decision-making processes where multiple actors are involved, the simultaneous presence of different but equally sensible knowledge frames is unavoidable.…”

“…The relevant dimension of ambiguity is something ranging from unanimous clarity to total confusion caused by too many people voicing different but still sensible interpretations (Dewulf et al, 2005). Different facts can mean different things for different actors, different issues can be held as relevant facts and different solutions can be favoured (Schön and Rein, 1994;Dewulf et al, 2004). Although similarities between actors and their preferences will probably contribute to avoid ambiguity, completely shared meaning and views are not required in multi-actor decision-making.…”