No abstract

In this article, we discuss how two interpretations of vulnerability in the climate change literature are manifestations of different discourses and framings of the climate change problem. The two differing interpretations, conceptualized here as 'outcome vulnerability' and 'contextual vulnerability', are linked respectively to a scientific framing and a human-security framing. Each framing prioritizes the production of different types of knowledge, and emphasizes different types of policy responses to climate change. Nevertheless, studies are seldom explicit about the interpretation that they use. We present a diagnostic tool for distinguishing the two interpretations of vulnerability and use this tool to illustrate the practical consequences that interpretations of vulnerability have for climate change policy and responses in Mozambique. We argue that because the two interpretations are rooted in different discourses and differ fundamentally in their conceptualization of the character and causes of vulnerability, they cannot be integrated into one common framework. Instead, it should be recognized that the two interpretations represent complementary approaches to the climate change issue. We point out that the human-security framing of climate change has been far less visible in formal, international scientific and policy debates, and addressing this imbalance would broaden the scope of adaptation policies. Dans cet article, nous discutons de la façon dont deux interprétations de la « vulnérabilité », telle qu'elle est couverte dans la littérature sur les changements climatiques, représentent deux manières différentes d'aborder le sujet du problème climatique. Les deux interprétations, définies ici en tant que « vulnérabilité liée aux conséquences » et« vulnérabilité liée au contexte » relèvent, respectivement, du point de vue scientifique et celui de la sécurité humaine. Chaque point de vue donne priorité à la formation de différents types de savoir, et mettent en valeur différents modèles de politiques de réponses aux changements climatiques. Cependant, les différentes études précisent rarement quelle définition est appliquée. Une méthode d'évaluation permettant de distinguer les deux interprétations est avancée ici et appliquée pour illustrer leurs conséquences réelles sur les politiques et réponses, au Mozambique. Les deux interprétations étant ancrées dans deux discours différents et étant fondamentalement différentes quant à la conceptualisation du caractère et des causes de la vulnérabilité, elles ne peuvent être intégrées dans un cadre d'analyse commun. Il s'agit plutôt de reconnaitre que les deux interprétations représentent des approches complémentaires au problème des changements climatiques. Le point de vue de la sécurité humaine a été jusqu'alors moins couvert dans le débat international officiel en matière de science et de politiques : un rééquilibrage agrandirait le champ des politiques d'adaptation.

No abstract

The current discourse on research productivity (how much peer-reviewed academic output is published by faculty) is dominated by quantitative research on individual and institutional traits; implicit assumptions are that academic writing is a predominately cognitive activity, and that lack of productivity represents some kind of deficiency. Introducing the academic literacies approach to this debate brings issues of identity, multiple communities, and different institutional expectations (at the local, national, and international levels) to the foreground. I argue that academics often juggle competing demands that create various sites of negotiation in the production of academic writing: the results of these negotiations can have a direct impact on what kind of research output is produced, and how much it 'counts'. Drawing from research on the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), this article demonstrates how a theoretical framework based on academic literacies can be used to investigate research productivity outcomes in specific academic settings.

No abstract

No abstract

The debate about ‘linguistic injustice’ centers on whether or not English as an additional language (EAL) writers face challenges in writing academically that are qualitatively different from those of novice academic writers irrespective of language background. This study aims to add nuance to this debate by looking at range of writers (from novice to expert) within an interdisciplinary social science research institute in Norway in order to investigate the mediating role of the institutional context. Using an ethnographic approach with an academic literacies perspective, it examines the challenges these writers face and discusses them in light of tensions between identity and institutional environment. It argues that the high degree of immersion in English causes ‘situated multilingualism’, where their ability to write about their topic in English surpasses their ability to write about it in Norwegian. Nonetheless, even the expert writers, particularly those in disciplines that value a unique authorial voice, demonstrated insecurity and lack of ownership to their writing in English. Moreover, the pressure to also sometimes write in Norwegian represented an additional site of negotiation not faced by their non-Norwegian counterparts. This suggests that the challenges EAL writers face are not determined by their language background alone, but also by their institutional environment—including the pressure to publish ‘internationally’, the amount of writing expected, and their immersion in English.

No abstract