• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >When worlds collide?: Hearings vs. Media in Making Meaning for Alberta's Oil Sands.
【24h】

When worlds collide?: Hearings vs. Media in Making Meaning for Alberta's Oil Sands.

机译：当世界碰撞时：在阿尔伯塔省油砂的意义上的听证会与媒体的对决。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Although resources are central in many organizational theories, we tend to overlook the social processes by which these become defined, infused with value, and made usable by rules. Thus I ask: How has a once legitimate and unquestioned energy source -- the Alberta oil sands -- become problematized? Neither the nature of this resource nor the decision processes for development have fundamentally changed over the past 50 years. Yet, the meanings of this previously taken-for-granted resource have become so contested within and between the regulatory development hearings and public media more broadly, such that industry self-regulation and international rulings are being transformed. To unpack the processes by which stakeholders construct and contest these meanings, I draw on an extended case study of Alberta's oil sands. I start by examining macro-level evolution of meaning in global media, then macro- to micro-level meanings between hearings and the surrounding media, and lastly on interactive macro- to micro-level contestations as discursive stakeholders agentically leverage across these arenas. During field emergence, oil (and tar as its descriptive synonym) was the uncontested resource of interest in this discursive field. Our interest in it increased exponentially, along with its value on the world market. This changed in 2008 and onwards, when water (and tar as the newly pejorative variation of 'oil') became a central resource in the discussion. The refocusing was catalyzed by the 1600 duck deaths on Syncrude's tailings ponds and by increasing concerns amongst Aboriginal peoples about contamination of the Athabasca River. This shift in the discussion represents an effort to balance the technical utility of oil with the life affirming essence of water, from a broader constituency of discursive stakeholders. My cross-arena rhetorical analysis illustrates how discursive stakeholders use different rhetorical tools to position and counter-position themselves against their opponents, differently in public media versus hearings, to influence the regulatory outcomes. This demonstrates that, when faced with decades of institutional intransigence, interstices between discursive fields can reveal hypocrisies and give challengers leverage points for change.
机译：尽管资源在许多组织理论中都处于中心地位，但我们倾向于忽略这些社会过程，这些过程被定义，注入了价值并可以按规则使用。因此，我问：曾经合法且毫无疑问的能源-艾伯塔省的油砂-如何成为问题？在过去的50年中，这种资源的性质和开发的决策过程都没有根本改变。然而，这种先前被视为准予使用的资源的含义已经在监管发展听证会和公共媒体之间以及之内更加广泛地争辩，以至于改变了行业的自我监管和国际裁决。为了解开利益相关者构建和质疑这些含义的过程，我参考了艾伯塔省油砂的扩展案例研究。首先，我考察了全球媒体中意义的宏观演变，然后是听证会与周围媒体之间的宏观到微观意义，最后是交互式的宏观到微观竞争，因为话语权相关者在这些领域具有代理作用。在油田出现期间，石油（和焦油是其描述性同义词）是该演说领域中无争议的兴趣资源。我们对其的兴趣及其在世界市场上的价值呈指数增长。这种情况在2008年及以后发生了变化，当时水（和焦油作为“石油”的新贬义词）成为了讨论的中心资源。 Syncrude尾矿池中有1600只鸭子死亡，以及原住民对阿萨巴斯卡河污染的忧虑日益加剧，促使人们重新集中精力。讨论中的这一转变代表着努力使石油的技术实用性与水的生命确证性相平衡，这一努力来自于广泛的，具有话语权的利益相关者。我的跨领域修辞分析表明，话语利害关系者如何在公共媒体和听证会上以不同的修辞工具对反对者进行定位和对立，从而影响监管结果。这表明，当面对数十年的体制僵化时，话语领域之间的缝隙可以揭示虚伪，并为挑战者提供改变的杠杆点。

著录项

  • 作者

    Lefsrud, Lianne Michelle.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Alberta (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 University of Alberta (Canada).;
  • 学科 Business administration.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2014
  • 页码 156 p.
  • 总页数 156
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 老年病学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号