Suchergebnisse

Melanie Nagel untersucht die Dynamik in politischen Diskursen am Beispiel der Proteste gegen das Bahnhofsprojekt 'Stuttgart 21'. Durch einen innovativen Ansatz, der Wissens- und Diskursnetzwerke in die Analyse einbezieht, gelingt es der Autorin, die Dynamik im politischen Diskurs nachzuzeichnen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen u. a., dass die Schlichtung den Diskurs nur vordergründig verändert hat und die Polarisierung im Konflikt nach wie vor vorhanden ist. Die Frage, worum es beim Diskurs um 'Stuttgart 21' eigentlich geht, wird durch die Betrachtung der Konfliktfelder Ökonomie, Verkehrstechnik, Ökologie, Städtebau und Partizipation beantwortet. Die innovativen Methoden der Diskursnetzwerkanalyse und die Visualisierungen dieser Netzwerke wurden interdisziplinär an der Universität Konstanz entwickelt und werden seit vielen Jahren international gelehrt. Melanie Nagel promovierte am Lehrstuhl für materielle Staatstheorie an der Universität Konstanz. Darüber hinaus ist sie seit über zehn Jahren in der Kommunalpolitik tätig.

Melanie Nagel untersucht die Dynamik in politischen Diskursen am Beispiel der Proteste gegen das Bahnhofsprojekt "Stuttgart 21". Durch einen innovativen Ansatz, der Wissens- und Diskursnetzwerke in die Analyse einbezieht, gelingt es der Autorin, die Dynamik im politischen Diskurs nachzuzeichnen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen u. a., dass die Schlichtung den Diskurs nur vordergründig verändert hat und die Polarisierung im Konflikt nach wie vor vorhanden ist. Die Frage, worum es beim Diskurs um "Stuttgart 21" eigentlich geht, wird durch die Betrachtung der Konfliktfelder Ökonomie, Verkehrstechnik, Ökologie, Städtebau und Partizipation beantwortet. Die innovativen Methoden der Diskursnetzwerkanalyse und die Visualisierungen dieser Netzwerke wurden interdisziplinär an der Universität Konstanz entwickelt und werden seit vielen Jahren international gelehrt. Der Inhalt · Zukunftsweisende Vision oder überteuertes Prestigeprojekt? · Politische Diskurse in der Theorie · Diskurs um "Stuttgart 21": Methoden, Analyse, Ergebnisse Die Zielgruppen · Dozierende und Studierende der Politik- und Verwaltungswissenschaft sowie der Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft · PolitikerInnen, JournalistInnen, interessierte BürgerInnen Die Autorin Melanie Nagel promovierte am Lehrstuhl für materielle Staatstheorie an der Universität Konstanz. Darüber hinaus ist sie seit über zehn Jahren in der Kommunalpolitik tätig.

AbstractThe complex relationship between local climate action and reducing global emissions is often difficult to grasp and cities might scale back their ambitions if they realize that the way is hard and rocky. We analyze local climate change narratives through the lens of the narrative policy framework (NPF). Following the NPF, policy actors use narratives to communicate information to change an existing system in order to achieve a specific goal. For our study, this implies that local climate action can be improved by using narratives to communicate information to achieve climate neutrality. We focus on the position and interplay of the most important and dominant actors and concepts in the plot of the narratives. To better analyze the main actors and content of the NPF plot in a systematic and comparable way, we offer the "narrative rate index" to dynamically trace the narratives. To include the dynamics and effects of global significant developments in the plots of the NPF narratives, we selected three phases between January 2018 and June 2021. What are the main characters and dominant actors in the plot of the narratives in the two cases? Are the narratives different depending on the context of the city, and are there general observable patterns? Our findings identify the central actors in the narratives of both cities: the science institute in Karlsruhe and the City Administration in Mannheim. Karlsruhe, a climate change pioneer, has slowed down its climate change activities somewhat, while Mannheim is a latecomer with high ambitions.

The increasing relevance of social networking platforms is accompanied by a growing number of studies using digital trace data. However, most studies still lack further understanding of the data-generating process. This analytical gap can be directly attributed to the prevalence of quantitative approaches, as only qualitative work is able to generate these insights. The broad methodological toolset of Discourse Network Analysis addresses this shortcoming as it combines both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The present study therefore employs Discourse Network Analysis in order to (1) determine different user groups' varying role as senders and recipients of targeted online conversations, (2) identify and compare Twitter users' (simultaneous) reference to different forms of conversational Twitter content, and to (3) asses the motivation of @message authors to direct particular tweets at particular user groups. To this end, this study analyzes @messages during the BBC program 'Question Time' on 2nd of June 2017—the final media encounter of Prime Minister Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn in the context of the 2017 UK election campaign. We draw on the theoretical background of Maarten Hajer's discourse coalitions approach in order to investigate the preconditions for the formation of discourse coalitions in new and emerging virtual discourse arenas. Thus, our work not only mirrors the focus in existing literature on Twitter usage during high-profile political media events, but also emphasizes Twitter's unique features for interactive exchange. This article identifies different forms of meta-talk and policy issues, which vary in both their general popularity with Twitter users as well as their interconnectedness. Furthermore, our analysis uncovers the motivation behind the decisions of @message authors to send particular @messages to certain groups of Twitter users. Finally, we could establish that media events only temporarily affect the topical foci of @message authors.

The increasing relevance of social networking platforms is accompanied by a growing number of studies using digital trace data. However, most studies still lack further understanding of the data-generating process. This analytical gap can be directly attributed to the prevalence of quantitative approaches, as only qualitative work is able to generate these insights. The broad methodological toolset of Discourse Network Analysis addresses this shortcoming as it combines both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The present study therefore employs Discourse Network Analysis in order to (1) determine different user groups' varying role as senders and recipients of targeted online conversations, (2) identify and compare Twitter users' (simultaneous) reference to different forms of conversational Twitter content, and to (3) asses the motivation of @message authors to direct particular tweets at particular user groups. To this end, this study analyzes @messages during the BBC program 'Question Time' on 2nd of June 2017—the final media encounter of Prime Minister Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn in the context of the 2017 UK election campaign. We draw on the theoretical background of Maarten Hajer's discourse coalitions approach in order to investigate the preconditions for the formation of discourse coalitions in new and emerging virtual discourse arenas. Thus, our work not only mirrors the focus in existing literature on Twitter usage during high-profile political media events, but also emphasizes Twitter's unique features for interactive exchange. This article identifies different forms of meta-talk and policy issues, which vary in both their general popularity with Twitter users as well as their interconnectedness. Furthermore, our analysis uncovers the motivation behind the decisions of @message authors to send particular @messages to certain groups of Twitter users. Finally, we could establish that media events only temporarily affect the topical foci of @message authors.

Abstract
Background
Designed to set limits to air pollutant emissions, EU Directive 2008/50/EG has pushed city administrations to strengthen their commitment to environmental protection with mixed results. However, the effectiveness of these policies remains suboptimal. Within this context, this paper provides original empirical evidence on the nature and evolution of the debate over air pollution in the EU that helps readers understand how the interplay among discourse coalitions across levels of governance relates to the implementation of air pollution directives in Europe. To provide this evidence, we apply the discourse-coalition framework to a multi-level governance context by comparing debates over air pollution and examining their evolution in different contexts through the use of discourse network analysis.

Results
Our results show that the debate in the EU institutions is largely dominated by pro-environmental coalitions, whereas discussions in Stuttgart and Berlin show different degrees of permeability to such arguments. Hence, the relative prominence of certain actors and levels of governance in the local discourse helps explain the extent to which debates at the local level align with the arguments put forward by the EU institutions. For their part, governmental organizations have a tendency to act as bridges between discourse coalitions.

Conclusions
This novel empirical evidence provides clues that help make sense of the varying levels of implementation of EU air pollution directives at the local level. In this regard, the ability of supranational and national bodies to align their discourse with those of local organizations might facilitate a common understanding and the successful implementation of EU policies. Policymakers aiming to improve air quality at the local level may want to consider engaging actively with this debate by reinforcing the arguments of pro-environmental coalitions. They may also want to make a special effort to ensure that the messages conveyed to supranational and national bodies are also effectively conveyed to lower levels of governance.

Urban stakeholders face a diverse range of socio-economic, cultural, and technical challenges that each demand diverging and partially conflicting answers. In this context, local and regional public actors' capacity to smoothly govern decision- making processes is structurally limited. Rather typically, conflicts may occur between public administration and the business community or the civil society. Moreover, actors within public administration notoriously clash over priorities. In this paper, we address the case of decision blockades and non-action in urban development politics. More specifically, we advance a network analytical perspective to explore the dynamics that lead to a political deadlock and persistent non-action in the case of Deutz Harbour in Cologne, Germany. Our findings indicate that a distribution of power and a non-prioritisation of frames effectively hinder action towards decision-making.

Die Gesellschaft ist in eine Phase zugespitzter Infrastrukturkonflikte eingetreten. Die Beiträger*innen erörtern aus politökonomischer und diskursanalytischer Perspektive, was diese Konflikte in den Bereichen Wohnen, Gesundheitsversorgung und saubere Luft kennzeichnet und wie der Staat auf sie reagiert. Im Mittelpunkt steht die Frage, mit welchen Herausforderungen, Perspektiven und Konflikten derzeit bei der Versorgung mit öffentlichen Gütern gerungen wird und welche Rolle schwache Interessen in diesen Aushandlungsprozessen spielen. Es wird deutlich: Die öffentliche Kritik der Unter- und Fehlversorgung adressiert jeweils den Staat, der diese Kritik oft zurückweist, mitunter aber auch auf kommunaler Ebene aufnimmt.