Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Talking Tomorrow’s Technology, Framing Political Choice? Read chapter Read first chapter

2021 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

3. Ideas and Objects, Meaning and Causation—Frame Analysis from a Modernist Social Constructivism Perspective

Author : Judith Kreuter

Published in: Climate Engineering as an Instance of Politicization

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Kreuter presents an elaborate and comprehensive theoretical construct to assess inadvertent framing of Climate Engineering approaches in academic discussion and its potential impact on decision-making. Based on the perspective of modernist social constructivism, Kreuter discusses the role of meaning as both constitutive and causally relevant. Aside from incorporating the notion of co-constitution of technology and society into political analysis, this chapter explores the role of academic communications in the construction of meaning of Climate Engineering. The theoretical construct provides a tool to analyze both legitimizing and delegitimizing moves of meaning-construction through language along four ideal-type frame themes, namely security, complexity, economy and appropriateness.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter An Idea—And More Than an Idea: Climate Engineering in Research and Decision-Making
next chapter The Early Discussion of Nuclear Weapons Technology in the 1930s and 1940s—Illustrating the Theoretical Construct
Footnotes
1
This pluralism is united in the pursuit of truth about international politics, albeit applying different methods and assuming different conditions to be fulfilled to approximate truth (Wendt 1998: 101; Behnke et al. 2012: 19).
 
2
Original quote: Die Welt ist nicht objektiv zugänglich, sondern wird durch diskursive Prozesse und symbolische Deutungen sprachlich vermittelt. (Uther 2014: 60), translated by JK.
 
3
Original quote: Der Akteur ist nicht nur passiv dem Diskurs unterworfen, wie etwa das Subjekt bei Foucault, sondern gestaltet den Diskurs durch eigene Interpretationsleistungen aktiv mit. (Uther 2014: 66), translated by JK.
 
4
This assumption will be explicated further below.
 
5
For comprehensive and profound discussions of this debate, see Lapid (1989), Wendt (1999), Hollis and Smith (1990).
 
6
See Chap. 1.
 
7
Technologies can be a cause for this change, as Wood and Flinders stress, through “the spillover effects of recent scientific and technological developments that offer new opportunities to control issues that were previously thought to be beyond human control” (Wood and Flinders 2014: 154). Here, however, technology will not be analyzed as the cause of politicization, but rather as the effect of depoliticization.
 
8
See Chap. 2.
 
9
‘Social problem’ will be defined here as a collective action problem which “exists whenever the common or collective interest of a group or society is not best served by the narrow pursuit by individuals of their own (perceived) self-interest” (Hay 2007: 2).
 
10
Technik ist ein Mittel für Zwecke. […] Technik ist ein Tun des Menschen. (Heidegger 1954: 13), translation by JK.
 
11
While I apply the American spelling of ‘artifact’, Bijker uses the British English spelling ‘artefact’.
 
12
In accordance with the carefully positivist epistemology espoused in this study, Bijker’s criticism of the ‘standard image’ of scientific knowledge is not entirely followed in this study: Hence, I take the position that scientific knowledge is based, to some degree, on objective laws. However, I assume that social factors also play a role in the generation of scientific knowledge.
 
13
Various other connecting points between ANT and political study of global governance have been drawn in the literature (Bueger 2013; Nexon and Pouliot 2013; Barry 2013; Cudworth and Hobden 2013).
 
14
The possibility and probability of these implications actually coming about is highly contested in the literature.
 
15
A decision problem is defined, according to the authors, “by the acts or options among which one must choose, the possible outcomes or consequences of these acts, and the contingencies or conditional probabilities that relate outcomes to acts” (Tversky and Kahneman 1981: 453).
 
16
This analysis stands in the context of prospect theory, developed by Tversky and Kahneman (1979, 1992) to explain the phenomenon that empirical studies have shown that people do not always pursue their expected utility in situations of risk, as expected utility theory would predict. Rather, the choice depends on whether the outcome of the decision is considered as a relative gain or loss instead of just an absolute change in wealth. “More than 30 years later, prospect theory is still widely viewed as the best available description of how people evaluate risk in experimental settings” (Barberis 2013: 173). Criticism of the theory targets, inter alia, the assumption that decision-making under risk can “be defined accurately by rigid quantitative models” (Nwogugu2006: 451) such as prospect theory.
 
17
Overviews over the very rich literature on normative change can be found in Engelkamp and Glaab (2015: 201).
 
18
For an evaluation of the text and its relevance for the field, see Engelkamp and Glaab (2015, in particular p. 202 and 203).
 
19
As discussed before, I do not assume that the academic discussion is the only factor determining CE decision-making. However, it is a very important one, and thus it can be expected that, if a dominant frame can be found in academic discussion, it will be this very frame which is taken into the governance discussion.
 
20
For the influence of framing on decision-making, see Kahneman and Tversky (1984); Tversky and Kahneman (1981, 1974).
 
21
Goffman studies ‘frames in thought’, i.e. “an individual’s (cognitive) understanding of a given situation” (Druckman 2001: 227–228). What is of interest here, however, is the academic discussion on CE, and, accordingly, ‘frames in communication’: “The frame that the speaker chooses may reveal what the speaker sees as relevant to the topic at hand” (Druckman 2001: 227).
 
22
Accordingly, the study of framing effects in political science is particularly relevant for decision-making theory, as the empirical evidence of these effects challenge the assumption of rational choice (see, for example, Druckman 2004: 673), e.g. in democratic elections.
 
23
As Entman elaborates: Kahneman and Tversky (1984) offer perhaps the most widely cited recent example of the power of framing and the way it operates by selecting and highlighting some features of reality while omitting others (Entman 1993: 53). Similarly, Druckman argues that “[t]he obvious starting point to build a theory of framing effects is Tversky and Kahneman’s […] prospect theory.” (Druckman 2004: 674)
 
24
An alternative frame set construction to the one introduced by Gamson and Modigliani (1989) is presented by Steve Rayner, who differentiates three “organizational cultures” in environmental decision-making based on cultural theory (Rayner 1991: 88; see also Rayner 1995). These ‘cultures’ can be considered equivalent to ‘frames‘ (Jachtenfuchs 1996b: 48), as they also, like frames, represent different problem definitions and problem-solving rationales. Rayner’s differentiation was not adopted here as Gamson and Modigliani’s frame set offers itself better to the connection to political science theory on the influence of discourse on governance choices, and because their frames were derived from empirical analysis on a similarly technological case of decision-making.
 
25
Translated by JK; Original quote: Soziales Handeln’ […] soll ein solches Handeln heißen, welches seinem von dem oder den Handelnden gemeinten Sinn nach auf das Verhalten anderer bezogen ist und darin in seinem Ablauf orientiert ist. (Weber 1980 [1922]: 1)
 
26
Translated by JK; Original quote: Wie jedes Handeln kann auch das soziale Handeln bestimmt sein 1. zweckrational: durch Erwartungen des Verhaltens von Gegenständen der Außenwelt und von anderen Menschen und unter Benutzung dieser Erwartungen als ‚Bedingungen’oder als ‚Mittel’für rational, als Erfolg, erstrebte und abgewogene eigne Zwecke,—2. wertrational: durch bewußten Glauben an den—ethischen, ästhetischen, religiösen oder wie immer sonst zu deutenden—unbedingten Eigenwert eines bestimmten Sichverhaltens rein als solchen und unabhängig vom Erfolg,—3. affektuell, insbesondere emotional: durch aktuelle Affekte und Gefühlslagen,—4. traditional: durch eingelebte Gewohnheit (Weber 1980 [1922]: 13)
 
27
Translated by JK; Original quote: Die Soziologie bildet […] Typen-Begriffe und sucht generelle Regeln des Geschehens. Im Gegensatz zur Geschichte, welcher die kausale Analyse und Zurechnung individueller, kulturwichtiger, Handlungen, Gebilde, Persönlichkeiten erstrebt (Weber 1980 [1922]: 9)
 
28
Tranlsated by JK; Original quote: wirklichkeitsfremd (Weber 1980 [1922]: 10).
 
29
Translated by JK; Original quote: […] in dieser absolut idealen reinen Form vielleicht ebensowenig je in der Realität auftreten wie eine physikalische Reaktion, die unter Voraussetzung eines absolut leeren Raums errechnet ist (Weber 1980 [1922]: 10).
 
30
For a very helpful overview over securitization theories, see, for example, Balzacq et al. (2016).
 
31
For more fine-grained differentiations of different approaches to securitization see, for example, Balzacq et al. (2015); Balzacq (2015).
 
32
Various operationalizations are applied in these studies, some focusing on frames, others on metaphors or arguments. All of those are considered, here, part of discourse. I will subsume all of these perceptions under the term ‘security framing’ for the sake of simplicity.
 
33
Rothe analyzes the connection between securitization and technology the other way around: He bases his study on the theoretical strand of ‘New Materialism’. This is a theoretical strand that expresses “opposition to the dominance of linguistic constructivism” (“Widerstand gegen die Dominanz des linguistischen Konstruktivismus”, (Rothe 2015: 97, translated by the author) in security studies. Accordingly, a “renewed attention” is given “to actual material changes and processes” (Coole 2013: 452). Rothe argues that technologies as non-linguistic, material things and practices, not just discourses, can and do securitize climate change (Rothe 2015: 97). In this study, then, technologies are studied as the consequence of securitization, and in Rothe’s paper, they are studied as the point of departure, as is common in IR studies from the theoretical perspective of new materialism (Connolly 2013; Coole 2013). Lundborg and Vaughan-Williams (2015) offer an enlightening approach to reconcile material-centered and language-centered studies in IR.
 
34
At the same time, Weinberg is not blind to the shortcomings of this approach as they often generate new problems. However, he concludes that “the social engineer’s problems are never really solved” (Weinberg 1966: 8) and that technological fixes are the best that can be done.
 
35
While this, at first glance, may seem like an approach that enjoyed the height of prominence in the early twentieth century and has been discarded in the meantime, Scott argues that it is still relevant today (Scott 2013: 2; see also Stirling 2014: 85).
 
36
Arthur defines a technological problem as “a set of requirements to be met” (Arthur 2009: 111).
 
37
As the group of actors is expected to be spread over a number of societal institutions, the concept of technological frame introduced by Bijker (2006: 696) is of more analytical value than the concept of technopolitical regime introduced by Hecht (cit. in Bijker 2006: 698).
 
38
While the authors are explicitly interested in ‚discourses’, not ‚frames‘, their focus on interest lies on various frame elements in the discussion: “we found that the following […] areas were of particular interest for our study: a description of the fundamental problem; the historical construction of the relationship between industrial, economic, political and atmospheric conditions; proposals for action; and responsibility” (Anshelm and Hultman 2015: 11). These ‘areas’ correspond, to some degree, with the frame elements of problem definition, causal evaluation, suggested remedy and moral judgement (Entman 1993: 52).
 
Literature
Adler E (1997) Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics. European J Int Rel 3(3):319–363CrossRef
Adler E, Bernstein S (2005) Knowledge in power: the epistemic construction of global governance. In: Barnett M, Duvall R (eds) Power on global governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 294–318
Adler E, Haas PM (1992) Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. Int Org 46(1):367–390CrossRef
Anais S (2013) Objects of security/objects of research. In: Mutlu CE, Salter MB (eds) Research methods in critical security studies. Routledge, New York, pp 195–198
Anshelm J, Hansson A (2014b) The last chance to save the planet? An analysis of the geoengineering advocacy discourse in the public debate. Environ Hum 5:101–123
Anshelm J, Hultman M (2015) Discourses of global climate change. Apocalyptic framing and political antagonisms. Routledge, London
Armeni C (2015) Global experimentalist governance, international law and climate change technologies. Int Compara Law Q 64(4):875–904CrossRef
Aronson JD (2010) The nature of technology: what it is and how it evolves. Int J Commun 4:258–260
Arthur WB (2009) The nature of technology: what it is and how it evolves. Free Press, New York, NY
Asayama S, Sugiyama M, Ishii A (2017) Ambivalent climate of opinions: tensions and dilemmas in understanding geoengineering experimentation. Geoforum 80:82–92CrossRef
Austin JL (1962) How to do things with words. The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK
Balzacq T (2005) The three faces of securitization: political agency, audience and context. European J Int Rel 11(2):171–201CrossRef
Balzacq T (2010) Constructivism and securitization studies. In: Cavelty MD, Mauer V (eds) The Routledge handbook of security studies. Routledge, London, pp 56–72
Balzacq T (2011) A theory of securitization: origins, core assumptions, and variants. Securitization theory: how security problems emerge and dissolve. Routledge, London, pp 1–30
Balzacq T (2015) The ‘essence’ of securitization: Theory, ideal type, and a sociological science of security. Int Rel 29(1):103–113
Barberis NC (2013) Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: a review and assessment. J Econ Perspect 27(1):173–196CrossRef
Barry A (2013) The translation zone: between actor-network theory and international relations. Millenium J Int Stud 41(3):413–429
Beck S (2015) Science. In: Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E (eds) Research handbook on climate governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham et al., pp 286–296CrossRef
Beck U (1995) Ecological politics in an age of risk. Polity Press, Cambridge
Beck U (1998) Politics of risk society. In: Franklin J (ed) The politics of risk society. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 9–22
Behnke J, Baur N, Behnke N (2012) Empirische Methoden der Politikwissenschaft (2. aktualisierte, Auflage edn. Ferninand Schöningh, Paderborn
Bellamy R (2013) Framing geoengineering assessment. Geoengineering our climate working paper and opinion article series
Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2012a). Appraising geoengineering. Tyndall working paper series, 153
Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2012b) A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. WIREs Climate Change 3(6):597–615CrossRef
Benford RD, Snow AD (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Ann Rev Sociol 26:11–39CrossRef
Bergek A, Jacobsson S, Sandén B (2008) ‘Legitimation’ and ‘development of positive exteralities’: two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 20(5):575–592CrossRef
Biermann F (ed) (2010) Global climate governance beyond 2012: architecture, agency and adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bigo D (2013). International political sociology. In: Williams PD (ed) Security studies. an introduction, 2nd edn. Routledge, London and New York, NY, pp. 120–133
Bigo D (2014) The (in)securitization practices of the three universes of EU border control: Military/Navy—border guards/ police—database analysts. Sec Dial 45(3):209–225CrossRef
Bijker WE (2006) Why and how technology matters. In: Goodin RE, Tilly C (eds) The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 681–706
Borgmann A (2012) The setting of the scene: technological fixes and the design of the good life. In: Preston CJ (ed) Engineering the climate: the ethics of solar radiation management. Lexington, Plymouth, UK, pp 189–200
Bowden G (2010) Rock, paper, scissors: uncertainty, innovation, and the evolving ecoloy of climate change discourse. Proc Media Ecol Ass 11:67–78
Brzoska M (2009) The securitization of climate change and the power of conceptions of security. Sicherheit Frieden 27(3):137–208CrossRef
Brzoska M, Oels A (2011) Versicherheitlichung des Klimawandels? Die Konstruktion des Klimawandels als Sicherheitsbedrohung und ihre politischen Folgen. In: Brzoska M, Kalinowski M, Matthies V, Meyer B (eds) Klimawandel und Konflikte. Versicherheitlichung versus präventive Friedenspolitik? Nomos, Baden-Baden
Buck HJ (2013) Climate engineering: spectacle, tragedy or solution? A content analysis of news media framing. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 166–180
Bueger C (2013) Actor-network theory, methodology, and international organization. Int Political Sociol 7(3):338–342CrossRef
Buzan B, Waever O, De Wilde J (1998) Security. a new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO
Caldeira K, Keith DW (2010) The Need for climate engineering research. Iss Sci Technol Fall 2010:57–62
Chong D, Druckman JN (2007b) A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. J Commun 57(1):99–118
Cohen MJ (2011) Is the UK preparing for ‘war’? Military metaphors, personal carbon allowances, and consumption rationing in historical perspective. Clim Change 104(2):199–222CrossRef
Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. Frances Pinter, London
Connolly WE (2013) The ‘new materialism’ and the fragility of things. Millenium J Int Stud 41(3):399–412
Coole D (2013) Agentic capacities and capacious historical materialism: thinking with new materialisms in the political sciences. Millenium: J Int Stud 41(3):451–469
Cornelissen JP, Holt R, Zundel M (2011) The role of analogy and metaphor in the framing and legitimation of strategic change. Org Stud 32(12):1701–1716CrossRef
Corner A, Pidgeon N (2010) Geoengineering the climate: the social and ethical implications. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Devel 52(1):24–37
Corry O (2012). Securitization and ‘riskification’: second-order security and the politics of climate change. Millenium J Int Stud 40(2):235–258
Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy Dilemma. Clim Change 77:211–219CrossRef
Cudworth E, Hobden S (2013) Of parts and wholes: international relations beyond the human. Millenium J Int Stud 41(3):430–450
Dalby S (2014) Rethinking geopolitics: climate security in the anthropocene. Global Policy 5(1):1–9CrossRef
Detraz N, Betsill MM (2009) Climate change and environmental security: for whom the discourse shifts. Int Stud Perspect 10:303–320CrossRef
Druckman JN (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Polit Behav 23(3):225–256CrossRef
Druckman JN (2004) Political prefernce formation: competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. Am Polit Sci Rev 98(4):671–686CrossRef
Druckman JN (2011) What’s it all about?: framing in political science. In: Keren G (ed) Perspectives on framing. Psychology Press, New York et al., pp 279–301
Druckman JN, Nelson KR (2003) Framing and deliberation: how citizens’ conversations limit Elite influence. Am J Polit Sci 47(4):729–745CrossRef
Dryzek JS (2005) The politics of the earth. environmental discourses, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dryzek JS (2006) Deliberative global politics. Discourse and democracy in a divided world. Polity, Cambridge
Edelman M (1993) Contestable categories and public opinion. Polit Commun 10(3):231–242CrossRef
Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–58CrossRef
Entman RM (2004) Projections of power: framing news, public opinion, and US foreign policy. Chicago University Press, Chicago
Entman RM (2010) Framing media power. In: D’Angelo P, Kuypers JA (eds) Doing news framing analysis. Routledge, New York and London, pp 331–355
Finnemore M, Sikkink K (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. Int Org 52(4):887–917CrossRef
Gamson WA (2005) Book review of Robert M. Entman’s projections of power. Public Opin Q 69(2):324–336
Gamson WA, Modigliani A (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. Am J Sociol 95(1):1–37CrossRef
Gardiner SM (2013b) Geoengineering and moral schizophrenia. What is the question? In: Burns WCG, Strauss AL (eds) Climate change geoengineering. philosophical perspectives, legal issues, and governance frameworks. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 11–38
Geels FW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy 33:897–920CrossRef
Geels FW (2007) Transformations of large technical systems: a multilevel analysis of the Dutch highway system (1950–2000). Sci Technol Human Values 32(2):123–149CrossRef
Geels FW (2012) A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. J Transp Geogr 24:471–482CrossRef
Geels FW (2014) Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult Soc 31(5):21–40CrossRef
Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge
Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48(6):781–795CrossRef
Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. Penguin, Harmondsworth
Grauvogel J, Diez T (2014) Framing und Versicherheitlichung: Die diskursive Konstruktion des Klimawandels. Zeitschrift für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung 3(2):203–232CrossRef
Gschwend T, Schimmelfennig F (2007) Forschungsdesign in der Politikwissenschaft: ein Dialog zwischen Theorie und Daten. In: Gschwend T, Schimmelfennig F (eds) Forschungsdesign in der Politikwissenschaft: Probleme - Strategien - Anwendungen. Campus, Frankfurt am Main, pp 13–35
Haas PM (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Org 46(1):1–35CrossRef
Hajer M (1997) The politics of environmental discourse. Ecological modernization and the policy process. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRef
Hajer M (2006) Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. In: Van den Brink M, Metze T (eds) Words matter in policy and planning. Discourse theory and method in the social sciences. KNAG, Utrecht, pp 65–74
Hall T (2012) Electronic voting. In: Kersting N (ed) Electronic democracy. Barbara Budrich, Opladen, pp 153–176CrossRef
Hamilton C (2013) Earthmasters. The dawn of the age of climate engineering. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
Hay C (2007) Why we hate politics. Polity, Cambridge, MA
Heidegger M (1954) Die Frage nach der Technik. In: Heidegger M (ed) Vorträge und Aufsätze. Pfullingen, Günter Neske
Heyward C, Rayner S (2013) Apocalypse Nicked! Climate geoengineering governance working paper series, 006
Hilpert U (2016) Introduction. In: Hilpert U (ed) Routledge handbook on politics and technology. Routledge, London
Hollis M, Smith S (1990) Explaining and understanding in international relations. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Hoppe R (1999) Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Sci Public Policy 26(3):201–210CrossRef
Hoppe R (2005) Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poeisis Prax 3(3):199–215CrossRef
Horton JB (2013) Geoengineering and the myth of unilateralism: pressures and prospects for international cooperation. In: Burns WCG, Strauss AL (eds) Climate change geoenegineering: philosophical perspectives, legal issues, and governance frameworks. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, pp 168–181CrossRef
Horton JB, Keith DW, Honegger M (2016) Implications of the Paris agreement for carbon dioxide removal and solar geoengineering. Harvard project on climate agreements—viewpoints
Hulme M (2008) The conquering of climate: discourses of fear and their dissolution. Geograph J 174(1):5–16CrossRef
Hulme M (2014) Can science fix climate change? A case against climate engineering. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK
Hurd I (1999) Legitimacy and authority in international politics. Int Org 53(2):379–408CrossRef
Huttunen S, Hildén M (2014) Framing the controversial: geoengineering in academic literature. Sci Commun 36(3):3–29CrossRef
Jachtenfuchs M (1996a) Frames and learning. In: Jachtenfuchs M (ed) International policy-making as a learning process? The european union and the greenhouse effect. Ashgate, Aldershot et al., pp 23–43
Jachtenfuchs M (1996b) A methodology for frame analysis. In: Jachtenfuchs M (ed) International policy-making as a learning process? The european union and the greenhouse effect. Ashgate, Aldershot et al., pp 43–60
Jacobsen KL (2015) Experimentation in humanitarian locations: UNHCR and biomtric registration of Afghan refugees. Sec Dial 46(2):144–164CrossRef
Jann W, Wegrich K (2007) Theories of the policy cycle. In: Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Jasanoff S (1987) Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc Stud Sci 17(2):195–230CrossRef
Jasanoff S (2004a) The idiom of co-production. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London and New York, pp 1–12
Jasanoff S (2004b) Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: Jasanoff S (ed.), States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London and New York, pp 13–45
Jasanoff S (2015) Science and technology studies. In: Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E (eds) Research handbook on climate governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham et al., pp 36–48CrossRef
Jaworski A, Coupland N (2006) The discourse reader, 2nd edn. Routledge, Oxon
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol 39(4):341–350CrossRef
Keith DW (2013) A case for climate engineering. Boston Review Cambridge, LondonCrossRef
Kessler O, Daase C (2008) From insecurity to uncertainty: risk and the paradox of security politics. Alternatives 33:211–232CrossRef
Kintisch E (2010) Hack the Planet. Science’s best hope—or worst nightmare—for averting climate Catastrophe. Wiley, New York, NY
Kreuter J (2015) Technofix, plan B or ultima ratio? A review of the social science literature on climate engineering technologies. INSIS Occasional Papers Series, India
Kreuter J (2018) Climate engineering and political decision-making: the importance of polarity in the academic debate. INoGOV policy brief
Lakoff G (2014) The all new don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate, 2nd edn. Chelsea Green Publishing, Chelsea, VT
Latour B (1996) On actor-network theory: a few clarifications. Soziale Welt 47(4):369–381
Levy DL, Spicer A (2013) Contested imaginaries and the cultural political economy of climate change. Organization 20(5):659–678CrossRef
Levy JS (2003) Applications of prospect theory to political science. Synthese 135:215–241CrossRef
Linnér B-O, Wibeck V (2015) Dual high-stake emerging technologies: a review of the climate engineering research literature. WIREs Climate Change 6:255–268CrossRef
Litfin K (2000) Environment, wealth, and autority: global climate change and emerging modes of Legitimation. Int Stud Rev 2(2):119–148CrossRef
Lloyd ID, Oppenheimer M (2014) On the design of an international governance framework for geoengineering. Global Environ Polit 14(2):45–63CrossRef
Lohmann L (2013) Interpretive openness and climate action in an age of market environmentalism. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 72–87
Long J, Loy F, Morgan MG (2015) Policy: start research on climate engineering. Nature 518(7537)
Lucke FV, Wellmann Z, Diez T (2014) What’s at stake in securitizing climate change? Towards a differentiated approach. Geopolitics 19(4):857–884
Lundborg T, Vaughan-Williams N (2015) New materialisms, discourse analysis, and international relations: a radical intertextual approach. Rev Int Stud 41:3–25CrossRef
Markusson N (2013) Tensions in framings of geoengineering: constitutive diversity and ambivalence. Climate geoengineering governance working paper series, 003
Markusson N, Wong P-H (2015) Geoengineering governance, the linear model of innovation, and the accompanying geoengineering approach. Climate geoengineering governance working paper series, 020
Matzner N, Barben D (2018) Verantwortungsvoll das Klima manipulieren? Unsicherheit und Verantwortung im Diskurs um Climate Engineering. In: Janich N, Rhein L (eds) Unsicherheit als Herauforderung für die Wissenschaft. Peter Lang, Berlin et al., pp 143–179
Mayer M (2012) Chaotic climate change and security. Int Polit Soc 6(2):165–185CrossRef
McDonald M (2012) The failed securitization of climate change in Australia. Australian J Polit Sci 47(4):579–592CrossRef
McDonald M (2013) Discourses of climate security. Political Geogr 33:42–51CrossRef
McLaren D (2013). Mirror mirror, on the wall: Fairness and justice in geo-engineering discourses. Paper presented at the Science in Public Notthingham
Mert A (2013) Discoursive interplay and co-constitution. Carbonification of environmental discourses. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 23–39
Methmann C, Rothe D (2012) Politics for the day after tomorrow: the logic of apocalypse in global climate politics. Sec Dial 43(4):323–344CrossRef
Methmann C, Rothe D (2013) Apocalypse now! From exception rhetoric to risk management in global climate politics. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches in global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 105–121
Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (2013b) Introduction. How and why to deconstruct the greenhouse. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 1–22
Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B. (2013c). Reflections. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 248–256
Miller C (2001) Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci Technol Human Values 26(4):478–500CrossRef
Morozov E (2014) To save everything, click here. Penguin, London
Morth U (2000) Competing frames in the European commission—the case of the defence industry and equipment issue. J European Public Policy 7(2):173–189CrossRef
Mutlu CE (2013) The material turn—introduction. In: Mutlu CE, Salter MB (eds) Research methods in critical security studies. Routledge, New York, pp 385–400
Nelson TE, Oxley ZM, Clawson RA (1997) Towards a psychology of framing effects. Polit Behav 19(3):221–246CrossRef
Nerlich B, Jaspal R (2012) Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor Symbol 27(2):131–147CrossRef
Nexon DH, Pouliot V (2013) Things of networks: situating ANT in international relations. Int Political Sociol 7(3):342–345CrossRef
Nisbet MC (2010a) Framing science. A new paradigm in public engagement. In: Kahlor L, Stout PA (eds) Communicating science. New agendas in communication. Routledge, New York, pp 40–67
Nisbet MC (2010b) Knowledge into action. Framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In: D’Angelo P, Kuypers JA (eds) Doing news framing analysis. Empirical and theoretical perspectives. Routledge, New York and London, pp 43–83
Nwogugu M (2006) A further critique of cumulative prospect theory and related approaches. Appl Math Comput 179:451–465
Oels A (2012) From ‘securitization’ of climate change to ‘climatization’ of the security field: comparing three theoretical perspectives. In: Scheffran J, Brzoska M, Brauch HG, Link PM, Schilling J (eds) Climate change, human security and violent conflict. Challenges for societal stability (Hexagon series on human and environmental security and peace, vol. 8). Springer, Heidelberg
Oels A (2016) Resisting the climate security discourse. In: O’Lear S, Dalby S (eds) Reframing climate change. Construcing ecological geopolitics. Routledge, London, pp 188–202
Oels A, von Lucke F (2015) Gescheiterte Versicherheitlichung oder Sicherheit im Wandel: Hilft uns die Kopenhagener Schule beim Thema Klimawandel? Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 22(1):43–70CrossRef
Parsons RJ (2010) Climate change: the hottest issue in security studies? Risk HazardCrisis Public Policy 1(1):87–116
Pouliot V (2010) Materials of practice: nuclear warheads, rhetorical commonplace and committee meetings in Russian-Atlantic relations. Coop Conflict 45(3):294–311CrossRef
Rayner S (1991) A cultural perspective on the structure and implementataion of global environmental agreement. Eval Rev 15(1):75–102CrossRef
Rayner S (1995) A conceptual map of human values for climate change decision making. In: Katama A (ed) Equity and social considerations related to climate change. Papers presented at the IPCCC working group III workshop. ICIPE Science Press, Nairobi, pp 57–73
Rein M, Schön D (1993) Reframing policy discourse. In: Fischer F, Forester J (eds) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press, Durham et al., pp 145–166CrossRef
Reynolds J (2015) A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern. Anthrop Rev2(2):174–191. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​2053019614554304​
Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change: resources and technology, vol 2. Battelle Press, Columbus, pp 327–400
Rothe D (2015) Von weitem sieht man besser. Satelittensensoren und andere Akteure der Versicherheitlichung. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 22(1):97–124
Ruggie JG (2014) Global governance and ‘new governance theory’: lessons from business and human rights. Glob Gov 20:5–17CrossRef
Schlipphak B (2011) Was ist ein Frame?—Zu den Grundlagen des Frame-Ansaztes in den Sozialwissenschaften. In: Schlipphak B (ed) Framing Ideology. Die Kommunikation ideologischer Positionierungen zwischen Parteien, Wählern und Medien. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 21–51
Scholte S, Vasileiadou E, Petersen A (2013) Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: how newspaper frames are changing. J Int Environ Sci 10(1):1–16
Schot J, Kanger L (2018) Deep transitions: emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality. Res Policy 47:1045–1059CrossRef
Scott D (2012) Insurance policy or technological fix? The ethical implications of framing solar radiation management. In: Preston CJ (ed) Engineering the climate: the ethics of solar radiation management. Lexington, Plymouth, UK, pp 151–168
Scott D (2013) Philosophy of technology and geoengineering. Geoengineering our climate working paper and opinion article series
Shepherd J, Cox P, Haigh D, Keith DW, Launder B, Mace G et al (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, London
Sikka T (2012) A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy. Critical Dis Stud 9(2):163–175CrossRef
Smit WA (2006) Military technologies and politics. In: Goodin RE, Tilly C (eds) The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), pp 722–744
Sniderman PM, Theriault SM (2004) The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In: Saris WE, Sniderman PM (eds) Studies in public opinion. Attidues, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, pp 133–165
Spindler M, Schieder S (2010) Theorien in der Lehre von den internationalen Beziehungen. In: Schieder S, Spindler M (eds) Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen 3, Auflage edn. Barbara Budrich, Opladen, pp 9–38
Steffek J (2003) The legitimation of international governance: a discourse approach. European J Int Rel 9(2):249–275CrossRef
Stephan B (2013) How to trade ‘not cutting down trees’. A governmentality perspective on the commodification of avoided deforestation. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 57–71
Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change. The stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Stirling A (2014) Transforming power: social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Res Soc Sci 1:83–95CrossRef
Szerszynski B, Galarraga M (2013) Geoengineering knowledge: interdisciplinarity and the shaping of climate engineering research. Environ Plann A 45:2817–2824CrossRef
Szerszynski B, Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Owen R, Stilgoe J (2013) Why solar radiation management geoengineering and democracy won’t mix. Environ Plann A 45:2809–2816CrossRef
Thakur R (2015) Nuclear weapons and international security: collected essays. Taylor and Francis, FlorenceCrossRef
Trombetta MJ (2008) Environmental security and climate change: analysing the discourse. Cambridge Rev Int Aff 21(4):585–602CrossRef
Trout BT (1975) Rhetoric revisisted. Political legitimation and the cold war. Int Stud Q 19(3):251–284
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131CrossRef
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Sci New Ser 211(4481):453–458
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5:297–323CrossRef
Uther S (2014) Diskurse des Climate Engineering. Argumente, Akteure und Koalitionen in Deutschland und Großbritannien. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden
Van Wijk J, Fischhendler I (2015) The construction of urgency discourse around mega-projects: the Isreali case. Policy Sci Forthcoming
Verbong G, Geels FW (2007) The ongoing energy transition: lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004). Energy Policy 35:1025–1037CrossRef
Waever O (1995) Securitization and desecuritization. In: Lipschutz RD (ed) On security. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, pp 46–85
Waever O (1996) The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate. In: Smith S, Booth K, Zalewski M (eds) International theory. Positivism and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 149–185
Weber M (1980 [1922]) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie (5. Revidierte Studienausgabe ed.). Mohr, Tübingen
Weinberg AM (1966) Can technology replace social engineering? Bull Atomic Sci 22(10):4–8CrossRef
Wendt A (1998) On constitution and causation in international relations. Rev Int Stud 24(Special Issue):101–117
Wendt A (1999) Scientific realism and social kinds. In: Wendt A (ed) Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 47–91CrossRef
Willsher K (2017) Paris mayor unveils plan to restrict traffic and pedestrianise city centre. The Guardian
Winner L (1977) Autonomous technology. Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Winner L (1980) Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109(1):121–136
Wood M, Flinders M (2014) Rethinking depoliticisation: beyond the governmental. Policy Politics 42(2):151–170CrossRef
Zürn M (2012) Global governance as multi-level governance. In: Lewi-Faur D (ed) The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 730–744
Zürn M, Schäfer S (2013) The paradox of climate engineering. Global Policy 4(3):266–277
Metadata
Title
Ideas and Objects, Meaning and Causation—Frame Analysis from a Modernist Social Constructivism Perspective
Author
Judith Kreuter
Copyright Year
2021
Book
Climate Engineering as an Instance of Politicization

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60339-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-60340-3

Copyright Year: 2021

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60340-3_3