83
3
There are, for instance, still climate sceptics who reject the dominating views by
scientists that serious anthropogenic climate change is taking place.
The identification of the four discourse types on topics about environment and
development does not imply that we argue that leading discourses on other topics
have to be in consistence with these types. For each topic, an empirical examination
has to be conducted in order to identify the discourse order and those discourses
that influence politics and practices. Moreover, discourses are not static. Their
continuations as well as changes rely upon their co-production of many actors, and
crucial aspects of the contexts of production may change over time. There may
also be important differences between discourses produced on a topic at the global
level and national varieties of these. It is also important to keep in mind that even
though we distinguish here between four clearly different types of discourses, it
may sometimes be difficult to set clear boundaries between specific discourses.
There may be intermediate positions containing elements of several discourse
types.
Nevertheless, we think that the four discourse types often may constitute a useful basis for comparison in order to identify discourse orders, and first of all the
leading discourses, of particular environment and development topics. When analysing a material of statements about a topic, this would involve comparisons of
similarities and differences with the discourse types.
Methods: How Can We Study Discourses?
First, it usually makes sense to start by identifying leading discourses on a theme.
This can be done in a range of different ways. When beginning the research on a
selected topic, one may start with a literature search to identify relevant studies
that have already been carried out by other scholars about leading discourses on
the topic. Such studies may be suitable to use as a point of departure for one’s own
empirical study based on critical realism (see 7 Chap. 1), where claims in one or
more of the leading discourses are discussed in comparison to one’s own findings.
Key claims may be about practices, results and impacts.
One may also choose to carry out an independent discourse analysis, because
of a lack of relevant discourse analyses, or because existing studies are dated making it necessary to examine whether the discourse universe on the topic has
changed.
We argue that discourse analyses that merely describe discourses usually have
limited value in critical studies if it is not combined with one or more elements of
realism where discursive claims are examined, or the use of discursive power is
analysed.
Primary sources in discourse analysis may consist of media articles, presentations on websites, reports and documents from businesses, organizations or government departments. Radio and TV programmes as well as images may also be
useful sources, as well as one’s own interviews with key actors, and for this chapter’s study of bioprospecting discourses, observations of conferences and international negotiations provided valuable insight and also journal articles written by
3.9 · Four Types of Discourses on Environment and Development
3
There are, for instance, still climate sceptics who reject the dominating views by
scientists that serious anthropogenic climate change is taking place.
The identification of the four discourse types on topics about environment and
development does not imply that we argue that leading discourses on other topics
have to be in consistence with these types. For each topic, an empirical examination
has to be conducted in order to identify the discourse order and those discourses
that influence politics and practices. Moreover, discourses are not static. Their
continuations as well as changes rely upon their co-production of many actors, and
crucial aspects of the contexts of production may change over time. There may
also be important differences between discourses produced on a topic at the global
level and national varieties of these. It is also important to keep in mind that even
though we distinguish here between four clearly different types of discourses, it
may sometimes be difficult to set clear boundaries between specific discourses.
There may be intermediate positions containing elements of several discourse
types.
Nevertheless, we think that the four discourse types often may constitute a useful basis for comparison in order to identify discourse orders, and first of all the
leading discourses, of particular environment and development topics. When analysing a material of statements about a topic, this would involve comparisons of
similarities and differences with the discourse types.
Methods: How Can We Study Discourses?
First, it usually makes sense to start by identifying leading discourses on a theme.
This can be done in a range of different ways. When beginning the research on a
selected topic, one may start with a literature search to identify relevant studies
that have already been carried out by other scholars about leading discourses on
the topic. Such studies may be suitable to use as a point of departure for one’s own
empirical study based on critical realism (see 7 Chap. 1), where claims in one or
more of the leading discourses are discussed in comparison to one’s own findings.
Key claims may be about practices, results and impacts.
One may also choose to carry out an independent discourse analysis, because
of a lack of relevant discourse analyses, or because existing studies are dated making it necessary to examine whether the discourse universe on the topic has
changed.
We argue that discourse analyses that merely describe discourses usually have
limited value in critical studies if it is not combined with one or more elements of
realism where discursive claims are examined, or the use of discursive power is
analysed.
Primary sources in discourse analysis may consist of media articles, presentations on websites, reports and documents from businesses, organizations or government departments. Radio and TV programmes as well as images may also be
useful sources, as well as one’s own interviews with key actors, and for this chapter’s study of bioprospecting discourses, observations of conferences and international negotiations provided valuable insight and also journal articles written by
3.9 · Four Types of Discourses on Environment and Development