11 pages, In the new public space shaped by short, fast, and networked interactions on social media, single keywords, often used in combination with a hashtag, have become important framing devices that structure conversations and communities. This study provides insight into how keywords become dominant framing devices. We conduct a longitudinal comparative case study on the emergence and evolution of two dominant keywords in the Dutch livestock debate: plofkip (booster-broiler) and megastal (megastable). Based on an analysis of social media messages, news articles, and policy debates and documents, we study the role of keywords in semantic fields, communication strategies, and policy practices. We present four dynamics that help to understand how keywords become 'master terms': (1) loaded keywords for contested politicized objects can become powerful framing devices because they carry normative meaning and yet are open enough to be applied widely; (2) if activists explicitly and consistently relate the meaning of a loaded term to realities and responsibilities in the sector, the term becomes the signifier of an activist frame: (3) counter terms and frames increase attention, broaden the involvement of actors and deepen the conversation to a value-based debate, through which keywords become master terms: (4) master terms shape policy practices, which in turn reinforces the affordance of the terms in the conversation. We propose the concept of 'master term' as a keyword that not only reflects, but activates and establishes a master frame around which conversations and practices revolve. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Yoder, Landon (author), Chowdhury, Rinku Roy (author), and School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University
Graduate School of Geography, Clark University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
Elsevier
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 16 Document Number: D10459
8 pages., Via online journal., Agricultural nonpoint source pollution remains a pressing environmental problem despite decades of policy and environmental initiatives. Cooperative local actions are a crucial element of effective multilevel governance solutions to such problems, but securing farmer participation for water quality protection remains challenging. Social capital—relations of trust, reciprocity, and shared social norms within and between key stakeholder groups—has been found to enable cooperation for environmentally desirable outcomes. However, the downsides of social capital remain under-examined in multilevel governance, where cooperation within one stakeholder group (bonding social capital) may undermine cooperation with other stakeholders (bridging social capital). Given this important gap, researchers need to examine how bonding and bridging social capital may be formed, maintained, or undermined through stakeholder interactions, and the corresponding environmental consequences.
In this paper, we address these gaps through a case study of south Florida’s sugar-producing region, whose drainage water flows south into the Florida Everglades. In contrast to persistent water quality impairment elsewhere, Everglades water quality has improved steadily over the past 20 years. These improvements have taken place under a complex set of governance arrangements that established a mandatory long-term numeric water quality target but which relies on shared compliance among farms. These dynamics encouraged interactions among three key groups of stakeholders—farmers, agricultural extension agents, and state regulators—to implement management changes. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, we find that bonding social capital among farmers encourages them to improve their management through a sense of shared responsibility, while also potentially limiting restoration by maintaining perceptions that the regulations are unfair. Bridging social capital helps to legitimize new management efforts, while court-mandated water quality targets incentivize farmers to draw on multiple forms of social capital. We also discuss the relevance of this case for governing agricultural nonpoint source pollution in similar settings elsewhere.
