...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Organization Studies >Organizing Authority in the Climate Change Debate: IPCC Controversies and the Management of Dialectical Tensions
【24h】

Organizing Authority in the Climate Change Debate: IPCC Controversies and the Management of Dialectical Tensions

机译：气候变化辩论中的组织机构：IPCC争议和辩证关系的管理

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

At the centre of the undeniably contentious debates about climate change lies the question of authority: Which voices will be heard and, thus, who will influence policy, activism, and scientific inquiry? Following high-profile errors found in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Dutch Parliament sought to achieve balance' in these debates by bringing together climate scientists and skeptics for a set of online discussions. Using both communication and dialectical theorizing, we explore the organizing of authority around climate change in the Netherlands. We locate dialectical tensions and discursive positions of diverse actors in the debate, examining the communication practices by which actors sought to resolve tensions as part of three authoritative moves: bridging, (de)coupling, and resisting. The combination of these authoritative moves failed to engage with - and therefore could not resolve - the sources of the underlying dialectical tensions. We build on these insights to suggest contributions to the climate change debate and theory on authority in organization studies.
机译：关于气候变化的无可争辩的辩论的中心是权威性问题：将听到哪些声音，从而影响政策，行动主义和科学探索的是谁？在政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）第四次评估报告中发现了引人注目的错误之后，荷兰议会通过将气候学家和怀疑论者召集在一起进行一系列在线讨论，力求在这些辩论中取得平衡。通过交流和辩证理论，我们探索了围绕荷兰气候变化的权威组织。我们在辩论中找出不同行为者的辩证关系紧张和话语立场，研究参与者试图通过解决沟通紧张的沟通实践，这是三个权威举措的一部分：桥接，（脱）耦合和抵抗。这些权威性举动的结合未能引起潜在的辩证关系紧张，因此无法解决。我们基于这些见解，为组织研究中的气候变化辩论和权威理论提出建议。

著录项

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