Understanding the social dynamics of climate change through analyses of discourse

Construction and contestation of climate activist identities in the comments section of a large UK‐based online newspaper

“…We adopted a discursively oriented thematic analysis informed by insights from social representations theory and the social identity approach. The utility of discursive analysis in understanding social responses to climate change has been widely demonstrated (see Kurz & Prosser, 2021 for overview). Discourse provides frameworks of meaning which enable language users to interpret, classify and construct social experience.…”

No agency and responsibility for the privileged? Perceptions of climate action among high socioeconomic status citizens in the United Kingdom

“…It is possible that participants' perceptions within this research are a product of how climate change as an issue is framed within their environment, and of societal discourse that does not seem to provide individuals with the conceptual tools to recognise and use their potential to mitigate climate change [101]. If they could be encouraged to use their non-consumer social roles, especially those that involve decision-making and influence, they could directly be a part of the structural change they themselves advocate for.…”

‘Talk amongst yourselves’: Designing and evaluating a novel remotely-moderated focus group methodology for exploring group talk

“…'Talk amongst yourselves': Designing and evaluating a novel remotely-moderated focus group methodology for exploring group talk Group discussions represent a rich and vital source of data for many researchers exploring diverse social issues. Discursive and other qualitative approaches argue that understanding the nature of conversations that occur within society is vital for understanding societal responses to almost all social issues, with examples including climate change (Kurz & Prosser, 2021;Lorenzoni et al, 2007;Wibeck, 2014); racism (Parker & Lynn, 2002;Halse, 2017;Johnson-Ahorlu, 2012); political issues (Andreouli & Nicholson, 2018;Betancourt et al, 2015); and marginalised group's experiences of health care (Scorgie et al, 2013;Hernandez et al, 2008). Researchers inside and outside of academia have thus far adopted focus groups as the primary methodological means of examining group discussions (Delli Carpini & Williams, 1994;O-Nyumba et al, 2018), with the focus group being described by some as an "established part of the methodological tool kit" for (qualitative) researchers (Barbour & Kitzinger, 1998, p.11).…”