Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

Peer-reviewed scientific journals and mainstream news media are two significant spheres of public discourse where this thesis examines the framing of anthropogenic climate change. Using a mixed-methods design, I first performed quantitative text analyses on a corpus of review article abstracts from Nature and Nature Climate Change (2022–2024) as well as tagged S¨uddeutsche Zeitung articles (June and December 2022–2024). Among these analyses were Discourse Network Analysis and frequency analysis of words and bigrams. Following the identification of recurrent word clusters and lexical patterns, six scientific papers and ten newspaper articles were chosen as purposive subsamples for a thorough qualitative analysis.

I used an integrated discourse-analytical framework that combined three different devices: firstly, the logic of problematisation proposed by Collier and Cox (2021), secondly, the distinction between global environmental management and prodigality discourses formulated by Adger et al.(2001), and lastly, Carol Bacchi’s ”What is the Problem Represented to Be?” questions (Bacchi 2012). According to this method, the majority of scientific and journalistic texts portray climate change as a technical or epistemic problem, highlighting data gaps, model uncertainty, and discrete impacts. Proposed solutions, on the other hand, typically focus on better measurement, modelling, and policy coordination. The crisis is divided into specific research problems (such as carbon feedback loops and grid decarbonisation) in scientific abstracts, and news articles replicate this fragmenting by focusing on specific phenomena like tipping points, marine heatwaves, and Arctic sea-ice loss. The global environmental management framework predominates in both areas; discussions of excessive consumption, equity, or systemic change are occasionally mentioned but stay on the periphery. These results imply that technocratic solutions are given precedence over more expansive moral, justice-focused, and narrative frames that have been demonstrated to encourage engagement in the examined domains of climate communication. Future research directions are suggested in the study’s conclusion, including comparing full-length articles and long-form journalism, incorporating activist, policy, or social media framings, and purposefully examining underutilised frames like intersectionality, equity, and climate justice. These initiatives may aid in bridging the gap between the complexity of science and the general public’s understanding and enhance communication’s ability to motivate group climate action.