Abstract
PurposeThe study aims to explain the communicative basis of conflicts in which actors stand in opposition in defining a negotiated situation and to deepen knowledge of environmental conflict development, in particular on how frames are (re)shaped through discursive choices in interaction.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopts an interactional approach to framing and 1) identifies the frames shaped and reshaped in four environmental debates and 2) analyzes how framing activities affect the course of the debates.FindingsThis study contributes to understanding 1) the interactive nature of conflicts; 2) how the reception and interpretation of issue framing depends on the surrounding identity and characterization framing and 3) how framing activities, like identity work, emotional alignment and reframing, can affect the course of environmental debates toward polarizing or bridging.Research limitations/implicationsOn a methodological level, this study contributes to communication research by applying methodologies for investigating framing processes on a micro-level. This study investigates interactional framing, considering the perspectives of frame strategists engaging in issue arenas. The study provides an in-depth discourse analysis of the debates but lacks an overview on the entire issue arena regarding this conflict.Practical implicationsSkilled actors span boundaries by articulating issue frames that accommodate opponents' concerns and values while demonstrating the added value of the new frame, adjusting identity work in favor of relations with opponents. Furthermore, calibrating emotional intensity offers opportunities to mobilize support.Originality/valueThis research investigates which communicative competences are essential to act adequately in environmental conflicts, given their intractable nature, and suggests opportunities for cocreation by making discursive choices. This approach helps to uncover the micro-processes that escalate and de-escalate a conflict.
Highlights
We, as mankind, have reached the ecological limits of our habitat, planet Earth
The results reveal how frames regarding the environmental conflict at stake were constructed and reshaped in interaction and the framing activities that were deployed in the four debates
(5) reframing an extant frame by articulating an overarching frame that resonates with both parties. When these framing activities are combined, they seem to reinforce one another and offer opportunities for building common ground. Another major finding is that the identity work and the framing of issues are intertwined in the sense that, without accurate identity and characterization framing, the intended issue framing may not come across
Summary
As mankind, have reached the ecological limits of our habitat, planet Earth. The current decade is expected to see a rise in sea level and average temperatures and in the number of environmental conflicts (Latour, 2014). Strategic communicators are attributed a discerning role in issue arenas (Vos et al, 2014), defined as places where stakeholders and (political) organizations discuss societal and environmental issues, focusing on the matters that connect different actors (Luoma-aho and Vos, 2010) This raises the question of which communicative competences are essential to act adequately in emerging environmental conflicts, given their generally complex and intractable nature (Lewicki et al, 2003; Brummans et al, 2008; Shmueli et al, 2006) and given the polyphonic character of issue arenas (Vos et al, 2014). A central theme in this view on issues management is the belief that organizations and publics can engage each other in ways that allow for one or both parties to change (Botan and Taylor, 2004; Pang et al, 2021; Kent and Taylor, 2002; Miles et al, 2006)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
