Talking Past Each Other? Cultural Framing of Skeptical and Convinced Logics in the Climate Change Debate
dc.contributor.author | Hoffman, Andrew J. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2011-02-24T14:37:13Z | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2011-02-24T14:37:13Z | |
dc.date.available | 2011-02-24T14:37:13Z | en_US |
dc.date.issued | 2011-02 | |
dc.identifier | 1154 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/83161 | |
dc.description.abstract | This paper analyzes the extent to which two institutional logics around climate change - the climate change "convinced" and climate change "skeptical" logics - are truly competing or talking past each other in a way that can be described as a logic schism. Drawing on the concept of framing from social movement theory, it uses qualitative field observations from the largest climate deniers conference in the U.S. and a dataset of almost 800 op/eds from major news outlets over a two-year period to examine how convinced and skeptical arguments of opposing logics employ frames and issue categories to make arguments about climate change. This paper finds that the two logics are engaging in different debates on similar issues with the former focusing on solutions while the latter debates the definition of the problem. It concludes that the debate appears to be reaching a level of polarization where one might begin to question whether meaningful dialogue and problem solving has become unavailable to participants. The implications of such a logic schism is a shift from an integrative debate focused on addressing interests to a distributive battle over concessionary agreements with each side pursuing its goals by demonizing the other. Avoiding such an outcome requires the activation of, as yet, dormant "broker" frames (technology, religion and national security), the redefinition of existing ones (science, economics, risk, ideology) and the engagement of effective "climate brokers" to deliver them. | en_US |
dc.subject | Institutional Logic | en_US |
dc.subject | Cultural Frame | en_US |
dc.subject | Issue Category | en_US |
dc.subject | Climate Change | en_US |
dc.subject | Climate Skepticism | en_US |
dc.subject | Logic Schism | en_US |
dc.subject | Challenger Logic | en_US |
dc.subject | Climate Broker | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | Management and Organizations | en_US |
dc.title | Talking Past Each Other? Cultural Framing of Skeptical and Convinced Logics in the Climate Change Debate | en_US |
dc.type | Working Paper | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Economics | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Business | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Ross School of Business | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampus | Ann Arbor | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83161/1/1154_AHoffman.pdf | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83161/4/1154_Ahoffman_finalFeb11.pdf | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83161/5/1154_Ahoffman_finalFeb11.pdf | |
dc.owningcollname | Business, Stephen M. Ross School of - Working Papers Series |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.