Search

In this paper, we are interested in how ethnographic research can contribute to the promotion of public deliberation. We do not use ethnography only to study deliberative processes but rather we intend to interpret ethnographic research as a social practice, and we research conditions under which ethnographic research might have deliberative consequences. The paper summarizes the results of the multidisciplinary research project Stories of Drought, which combines natural and social sciences in its approach. The project aims to understand how people in Czech rural areas respond to localized effects of climate change, especially drought. Following a systemic approach to deliberative democracy, we study how ethnography contributes to fulfilling three deliberative functions: (1) the epistemic function; (2) the ethical function and (3) the democratic function. In the context of irrigation disputes in South Moravia, we map the arguments of main actors and critical tensions in local discourses. We conclude that ethnographic research, due to its hybrid position between different sources of knowledge, its institutionally recognized expertise and its ability to establish an ethnographer as a trustworthy actor, can outweigh local critical power imbalances blocking deliberative capacity in local policy systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing body of research suggests that the global conception of climate change is increasingly taking a justice-focus. However, the justice-framings of different actors in the UNFCCC process and their evolution have not yet been examined. We conduct a critical discourse analysis of climate justice claims of state and non-state actors in COP15, COP19, COP21 and COP24 which are key moments for climate justice under the UNFCCC. Our findings indicate that the UNFCCC has not delivered on climate justice, power stands out as a key issue in the negotiations, and the negotiations reproduce structures of climate injustice. We identified four new country groupings with different climate justice frames. The Radicals consider climate change an imminent threat, while Opportunists seek to benefit from it. The Hypocrites recognize their contribution to climate change but avoid responsibility through libertarian mechanisms. The Evaders construe justice a normative issue and block others' justice claims. These groupings help discern how justice framings have evolved and how they are used in strategic ways to advance interests in multilateral forums. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of critical policy studies networks is evident in the proliferation of network-building efforts. These coincide with the rise of epistemic communities and sub-communities through existing, active platforms and interactive exchanges. Based on participatory observations, content analysis, and discussions with key informants, this article seeks to map out the range of established networks that have been formed for critical and interpretive orientation in policy studies. The article unpacks the platforms, activities, and key focuses exhibited by these networks; and after that, analyzes both their common grounds and differences. Emerging with one another together, these networks encourage and produce critical and interpretive approaches, albeit with differing shades in how they approach knowledge. The significance of these networks will largely depend on which kinds, or shades, of knowledge become salient. There is a prospect of establishing connections among critical policy studies networks as they share among one another in developing these interconnections. The purpose of this article effort is to offer a map to inquirers in order to help them better orient themselves to their task, which is not simply further mapping, but also includes furthering the development of critical policy studies networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thirty years of well-meaning efforts by environmental scientists, NGOs and foundations have failed to result in effective policy and nongovernmental action; we believe this is because the extent and nature of obstruction efforts are barely understood, and therefore not effectively countered. We built the Climate Social Science Network (CSSN) to address this damaging lack of understanding of climate obstruction. In the few years since our launch in September 2020, CSSN has grown rapidly to nearly 500 scholars in 35 countries, and shown that this research agenda is of wide interest and use for some of the world's most promising campaigns to address climate change. We wish CSSN to provide detailed, systematic and reliable information about the organizations obstructing climate action to civil society organizations, investigators, litigators, and policy-makers. However, we have learned that doing so only through scholarly outputs is not sufficient, and even with a focused effort on outreach and translation, that academic institutions are not by themselves adequate to match the complex organizational network assembled by conservative actors seeking to avoid regulation and roll back climate action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]