Meaning-making on the ground: an empirical study on interactional framing in environmental conflicts

Abstract

PurposeThe study aims to explain the communicative basis of conflicts in which actors stand in opposition in defining a negotiated situation and to deepen knowledge of environmental conflict development, in particular on how frames are (re)shaped through discursive choices in interaction.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopts an interactional approach to framing and 1) identifies the frames shaped and reshaped in four environmental debates and 2) analyzes how framing activities affect the course of the debates.FindingsThis study contributes to understanding 1) the interactive nature of conflicts; 2) how the reception and interpretation of issue framing depends on the surrounding identity and characterization framing and 3) how framing activities, like identity work, emotional alignment and reframing, can affect the course of environmental debates toward polarizing or bridging.Research limitations/implicationsOn a methodological level, this study contributes to communication research by applying methodologies for investigating framing processes on a micro-level. This study investigates interactional framing, considering the perspectives of frame strategists engaging in issue arenas. The study provides an in-depth discourse analysis of the debates but lacks an overview on the entire issue arena regarding this conflict.Practical implicationsSkilled actors span boundaries by articulating issue frames that accommodate opponents' concerns and values while demonstrating the added value of the new frame, adjusting identity work in favor of relations with opponents. Furthermore, calibrating emotional intensity offers opportunities to mobilize support.Originality/valueThis research investigates which communicative competences are essential to act adequately in environmental conflicts, given their intractable nature, and suggests opportunities for cocreation by making discursive choices. This approach helps to uncover the micro-processes that escalate and de-escalate a conflict.

Aligning agri-environmental-climate public good supply and desire in a sustainable Dutch agricultural sector

“…In the polarized Dutch agricultural debate, farmers are sometimes depicted as ignorant or negligent towards sustainability (van Vuuren-Verkerk et al 2021 ). However, the farm groups had a clear demand for all AECPGs.…”

Navigating moral minefields in a VUCA world: the contribution of moral foundations theory to strategic communication research and practice

“…Feinberg and Willer (2019) define a communication text as a moral frame when it is tailored to appeal to the “deeply held moral convictions” of an audience (p. 3). Reframing, in general, means putting an issue in an alternative perspective or creating an “overarching frame” resonating with opposing groups (van Vuuren-Verkerk et al , 2021, p. 381). Likewise, “moral reframing” involves framing a (political) claim that is in favor of a specific group in a way to also resonate with the moral foundations of opposing groups (Voelkel and Feinberg, 2018, p. 918).…”

“…While the framing paradigm (e. g. Anderson, 2018, p. 112; Lim and Jones, 2010) and the concept of reframing (e. g. van Vuuren-Verkerk et al , 2021) have been adopted in strategic communication research, framing-perspectives that explicitly focus on moral frames, however, seem to remain scarce with few exceptions (e.g. An, 2011).…”

Human-Ai Interaction in Regulating Productivity and Wellbeing

“…In particular, the findings highlight issues arising from the rigidity of encoded frames and the pressure exerted on workers to conform or adapt their frames to integrate or interact with the IPA successfully. In comparison with humanhuman interactions, where individuals can negotiate and resolve frame conflicts among themselves (Benford & Snow, 2000;Dewulf et al, 2009;Shmueli et al, 2006;van Vuuren-Verkerk et al, 2021), frame conflict resolution is mainly one-sided in human-AI interactions, in that, while human frames are flexible, IPAs' encoded frames are rigid. The IPAs cannot reactively adjust their frames to accommodate those of workers.…”

“…In contrast to human-human interactions, where frame conflicts can be mutually negotiated and resolved (Benford & Snow, 2000;Dewulf et al, 2009;Shmueli et al, 2006;van Vuuren-Verkerk et al, 2021), the resolution of frame conflicts in human-AI interactions is mainly unilateral. As demonstrated by the IPA in this study, human frames exhibit flexibility, whereas the IPA's encoded frames are predominantly rigid, leaving little room for adjustment to align with workers' perspectives.…”