Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ideas and Objects, Meaning and Causation—Frame Analysis from a Modernist Social Constructivism Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Climate Engineering as an Instance of Politicization

Part of the book series: Springer Climate ((SPCL))

  • 342 Accesses

Abstract

Kreuter presents an elaborate and comprehensive theoretical construct to assess inadvertent framing of Climate Engineering approaches in academic discussion and its potential impact on decision-making. Based on the perspective of modernist social constructivism, Kreuter discusses the role of meaning as both constitutive and causally relevant. Aside from incorporating the notion of co-constitution of technology and society into political analysis, this chapter explores the role of academic communications in the construction of meaning of Climate Engineering. The theoretical construct provides a tool to analyze both legitimizing and delegitimizing moves of meaning-construction through language along four ideal-type frame themes, namely security, complexity, economy and appropriateness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This pluralism is united in the pursuit of truth about international politics, albeit applying different methods and assuming different conditions to be fulfilled to approximate truth (Wendt 1998: 101; Behnke et al. 2012: 19).

  2. 2.

    Original quote: Die Welt ist nicht objektiv zugänglich, sondern wird durch diskursive Prozesse und symbolische Deutungen sprachlich vermittelt. (Uther 2014: 60), translated by JK.

  3. 3.

    Original quote: Der Akteur ist nicht nur passiv dem Diskurs unterworfen, wie etwa das Subjekt bei Foucault, sondern gestaltet den Diskurs durch eigene Interpretationsleistungen aktiv mit. (Uther 2014: 66), translated by JK.

  4. 4.

    This assumption will be explicated further below.

  5. 5.

    For comprehensive and profound discussions of this debate, see Lapid (1989), Wendt (1999), Hollis and Smith (1990).

  6. 6.

    See Chap. 1.

  7. 7.

    Technologies can be a cause for this change, as Wood and Flinders stress, through “the spillover effects of recent scientific and technological developments that offer new opportunities to control issues that were previously thought to be beyond human control” (Wood and Flinders 2014: 154). Here, however, technology will not be analyzed as the cause of politicization, but rather as the effect of depoliticization.

  8. 8.

    See Chap. 2.

  9. 9.

    ‘Social problem’ will be defined here as a collective action problem which “exists whenever the common or collective interest of a group or society is not best served by the narrow pursuit by individuals of their own (perceived) self-interest” (Hay 2007: 2).

  10. 10.

    Technik ist ein Mittel für Zwecke. […] Technik ist ein Tun des Menschen. (Heidegger 1954: 13), translation by JK.

  11. 11.

    While I apply the American spelling of ‘artifact’, Bijker uses the British English spelling ‘artefact’.

  12. 12.

    In accordance with the carefully positivist epistemology espoused in this study, Bijker’s criticism of the ‘standard image’ of scientific knowledge is not entirely followed in this study: Hence, I take the position that scientific knowledge is based, to some degree, on objective laws. However, I assume that social factors also play a role in the generation of scientific knowledge.

  13. 13.

    Various other connecting points between ANT and political study of global governance have been drawn in the literature (Bueger 2013; Nexon and Pouliot 2013; Barry 2013; Cudworth and Hobden 2013).

  14. 14.

    The possibility and probability of these implications actually coming about is highly contested in the literature.

  15. 15.

    A decision problem is defined, according to the authors, “by the acts or options among which one must choose, the possible outcomes or consequences of these acts, and the contingencies or conditional probabilities that relate outcomes to acts” (Tversky and Kahneman 1981: 453).

  16. 16.

    This analysis stands in the context of prospect theory, developed by Tversky and Kahneman (1979, 1992) to explain the phenomenon that empirical studies have shown that people do not always pursue their expected utility in situations of risk, as expected utility theory would predict. Rather, the choice depends on whether the outcome of the decision is considered as a relative gain or loss instead of just an absolute change in wealth. “More than 30 years later, prospect theory is still widely viewed as the best available description of how people evaluate risk in experimental settings” (Barberis 2013: 173). Criticism of the theory targets, inter alia, the assumption that decision-making under risk can “be defined accurately by rigid quantitative models” (Nwogugu2006: 451) such as prospect theory.

  17. 17.

    Overviews over the very rich literature on normative change can be found in Engelkamp and Glaab (2015: 201).

  18. 18.

    For an evaluation of the text and its relevance for the field, see Engelkamp and Glaab (2015, in particular p. 202 and 203).

  19. 19.

    As discussed before, I do not assume that the academic discussion is the only factor determining CE decision-making. However, it is a very important one, and thus it can be expected that, if a dominant frame can be found in academic discussion, it will be this very frame which is taken into the governance discussion.

  20. 20.

    For the influence of framing on decision-making, see Kahneman and Tversky (1984); Tversky and Kahneman (1981, 1974).

  21. 21.

    Goffman studies ‘frames in thought’, i.e. “an individual’s (cognitive) understanding of a given situation” (Druckman 2001: 227–228). What is of interest here, however, is the academic discussion on CE, and, accordingly, ‘frames in communication’: “The frame that the speaker chooses may reveal what the speaker sees as relevant to the topic at hand” (Druckman 2001: 227).

  22. 22.

    Accordingly, the study of framing effects in political science is particularly relevant for decision-making theory, as the empirical evidence of these effects challenge the assumption of rational choice (see, for example, Druckman 2004: 673), e.g. in democratic elections.

  23. 23.

    As Entman elaborates: Kahneman and Tversky (1984) offer perhaps the most widely cited recent example of the power of framing and the way it operates by selecting and highlighting some features of reality while omitting others (Entman 1993: 53). Similarly, Druckman argues that “[t]he obvious starting point to build a theory of framing effects is Tversky and Kahneman’s […] prospect theory.” (Druckman 2004: 674)

  24. 24.

    An alternative frame set construction to the one introduced by Gamson and Modigliani (1989) is presented by Steve Rayner, who differentiates three “organizational cultures” in environmental decision-making based on cultural theory (Rayner 1991: 88; see also Rayner 1995). These ‘cultures’ can be considered equivalent to ‘frames‘ (Jachtenfuchs 1996b: 48), as they also, like frames, represent different problem definitions and problem-solving rationales. Rayner’s differentiation was not adopted here as Gamson and Modigliani’s frame set offers itself better to the connection to political science theory on the influence of discourse on governance choices, and because their frames were derived from empirical analysis on a similarly technological case of decision-making.

  25. 25.

    Translated by JK; Original quote: Soziales Handeln’ […] soll ein solches Handeln heißen, welches seinem von dem oder den Handelnden gemeinten Sinn nach auf das Verhalten anderer bezogen ist und darin in seinem Ablauf orientiert ist. (Weber 1980 [1922]: 1)

  26. 26.

    Translated by JK; Original quote: Wie jedes Handeln kann auch das soziale Handeln bestimmt sein 1. zweckrational: durch Erwartungen des Verhaltens von Gegenständen der Außenwelt und von anderen Menschen und unter Benutzung dieser Erwartungen als ‚Bedingungen’oder als ‚Mittel’für rational, als Erfolg, erstrebte und abgewogene eigne Zwecke,—2. wertrational: durch bewußten Glauben an den—ethischen, ästhetischen, religiösen oder wie immer sonst zu deutenden—unbedingten Eigenwert eines bestimmten Sichverhaltens rein als solchen und unabhängig vom Erfolg,—3. affektuell, insbesondere emotional: durch aktuelle Affekte und Gefühlslagen,—4. traditional: durch eingelebte Gewohnheit (Weber 1980 [1922]: 13)

  27. 27.

    Translated by JK; Original quote: Die Soziologie bildet […] Typen-Begriffe und sucht generelle Regeln des Geschehens. Im Gegensatz zur Geschichte, welcher die kausale Analyse und Zurechnung individueller, kulturwichtiger, Handlungen, Gebilde, Persönlichkeiten erstrebt (Weber 1980 [1922]: 9)

  28. 28.

    Tranlsated by JK; Original quote: wirklichkeitsfremd (Weber 1980 [1922]: 10).

  29. 29.

    Translated by JK; Original quote: […] in dieser absolut idealen reinen Form vielleicht ebensowenig je in der Realität auftreten wie eine physikalische Reaktion, die unter Voraussetzung eines absolut leeren Raums errechnet ist (Weber 1980 [1922]: 10).

  30. 30.

    For a very helpful overview over securitization theories, see, for example, Balzacq et al. (2016).

  31. 31.

    For more fine-grained differentiations of different approaches to securitization see, for example, Balzacq et al. (2015); Balzacq (2015).

  32. 32.

    Various operationalizations are applied in these studies, some focusing on frames, others on metaphors or arguments. All of those are considered, here, part of discourse. I will subsume all of these perceptions under the term ‘security framing’ for the sake of simplicity.

  33. 33.

    Rothe analyzes the connection between securitization and technology the other way around: He bases his study on the theoretical strand of ‘New Materialism’. This is a theoretical strand that expresses “opposition to the dominance of linguistic constructivism” (“Widerstand gegen die Dominanz des linguistischen Konstruktivismus”, (Rothe 2015: 97, translated by the author) in security studies. Accordingly, a “renewed attention” is given “to actual material changes and processes” (Coole 2013: 452). Rothe argues that technologies as non-linguistic, material things and practices, not just discourses, can and do securitize climate change (Rothe 2015: 97). In this study, then, technologies are studied as the consequence of securitization, and in Rothe’s paper, they are studied as the point of departure, as is common in IR studies from the theoretical perspective of new materialism (Connolly 2013; Coole 2013). Lundborg and Vaughan-Williams (2015) offer an enlightening approach to reconcile material-centered and language-centered studies in IR.

  34. 34.

    At the same time, Weinberg is not blind to the shortcomings of this approach as they often generate new problems. However, he concludes that “the social engineer’s problems are never really solved” (Weinberg 1966: 8) and that technological fixes are the best that can be done.

  35. 35.

    While this, at first glance, may seem like an approach that enjoyed the height of prominence in the early twentieth century and has been discarded in the meantime, Scott argues that it is still relevant today (Scott 2013: 2; see also Stirling 2014: 85).

  36. 36.

    Arthur defines a technological problem as “a set of requirements to be met” (Arthur 2009: 111).

  37. 37.

    As the group of actors is expected to be spread over a number of societal institutions, the concept of technological frame introduced by Bijker (2006: 696) is of more analytical value than the concept of technopolitical regime introduced by Hecht (cit. in Bijker 2006: 698).

  38. 38.

    While the authors are explicitly interested in ‚discourses’, not ‚frames‘, their focus on interest lies on various frame elements in the discussion: “we found that the following […] areas were of particular interest for our study: a description of the fundamental problem; the historical construction of the relationship between industrial, economic, political and atmospheric conditions; proposals for action; and responsibility” (Anshelm and Hultman 2015: 11). These ‘areas’ correspond, to some degree, with the frame elements of problem definition, causal evaluation, suggested remedy and moral judgement (Entman 1993: 52).

References

  • Adler E (1997) Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics. European J Int Rel 3(3):319–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler E (2008) The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO’s post-cold war transformation. European J Int Rel 14(2):195–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066108089241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler E, Bernstein S (2005) Knowledge in power: the epistemic construction of global governance. In: Barnett M, Duvall R (eds) Power on global governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 294–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler E, Haas PM (1992) Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. Int Org 46(1):367–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler E, Pouliot V (2011) International Practices. Int Theory 3(1):1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297191000031X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anais S (2013) Objects of security/objects of research. In: Mutlu CE, Salter MB (eds) Research methods in critical security studies. Routledge, New York, pp 195–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Anshelm J, Hansson A (2014a) Battling promethean dreams and Trojan Horses: revealing the critical discourses on geoengineering. Energy Res Soc Sci 2:135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anshelm J, Hansson A (2014b) The last chance to save the planet? An analysis of the geoengineering advocacy discourse in the public debate. Environ Hum 5:101–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Anshelm J, Hultman M (2015) Discourses of global climate change. Apocalyptic framing and political antagonisms. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Armeni C (2015) Global experimentalist governance, international law and climate change technologies. Int Compara Law Q 64(4):875–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson JD (2010) The nature of technology: what it is and how it evolves. Int J Commun 4:258–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur WB (2009) The nature of technology: what it is and how it evolves. Free Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Asayama S (2014) Catastrophism toward ‘opening up’ or ‘closing down’? Going beyond the apocalyptic future and geoengineering. Curr Soc 63(1):89–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114559849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asayama S, Sugiyama M, Ishii A (2017) Ambivalent climate of opinions: tensions and dilemmas in understanding geoengineering experimentation. Geoforum 80:82–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin JL (1962) How to do things with words. The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq T (2005) The three faces of securitization: political agency, audience and context. European J Int Rel 11(2):171–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq T (2010) Constructivism and securitization studies. In: Cavelty MD, Mauer V (eds) The Routledge handbook of security studies. Routledge, London, pp 56–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq T (2011) A theory of securitization: origins, core assumptions, and variants. Securitization theory: how security problems emerge and dissolve. Routledge, London, pp 1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq T (2015) The ‘essence’ of securitization: Theory, ideal type, and a sociological science of security. Int Rel 29(1):103–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq T, Guzzini S, Williams MC, Waever O, Patomäki H (2015) What kind of theory—if any—is securitization? Int Rel 29(1):96–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117814526606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq T, Léonard S, Ruzicka J (2016) ‘Securitization’ revisited: theory and cases. Int Rel 30(4):494–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117815596590

  • Barberis NC (2013) Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: a review and assessment. J Econ Perspect 27(1):173–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry A (2013) The translation zone: between actor-network theory and international relations. Millenium J Int Stud 41(3):413–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck S (2015) Science. In: Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E (eds) Research handbook on climate governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham et al., pp 286–296

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S, Mahony M (2018) The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience. Global Sustain 1(e8):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1995) Ecological politics in an age of risk. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1998) Politics of risk society. In: Franklin J (ed) The politics of risk society. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 9–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Behnke J, Baur N, Behnke N (2012) Empirische Methoden der Politikwissenschaft (2. aktualisierte, Auflage edn. Ferninand Schöningh, Paderborn

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy R (2013) Framing geoengineering assessment. Geoengineering our climate working paper and opinion article series

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2012a). Appraising geoengineering. Tyndall working paper series, 153

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2012b) A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. WIREs Climate Change 3(6):597–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy R, Hulme M (2011) Beyond the tipping point: understanding perceptions of abrupt climate change and their implications. Weather Clim Soc 3:48–60. https://doi.org/10.1175/2011WCAS1081.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belter CW, Seidel DJ (2013) A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research. WIREs Climate Change 4(5):417–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benford RD, Snow AD (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Ann Rev Sociol 26:11–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergek A, Jacobsson S, Sandén B (2008) ‘Legitimation’ and ‘development of positive exteralities’: two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 20(5):575–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann F (ed) (2010) Global climate governance beyond 2012: architecture, agency and adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigo D (2013). International political sociology. In: Williams PD (ed) Security studies. an introduction, 2nd edn. Routledge, London and New York, NY, pp. 120–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigo D (2014) The (in)securitization practices of the three universes of EU border control: Military/Navy—border guards/ police—database analysts. Sec Dial 45(3):209–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijker WE (2006) Why and how technology matters. In: Goodin RE, Tilly C (eds) The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 681–706

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgmann A (2012) The setting of the scene: technological fixes and the design of the good life. In: Preston CJ (ed) Engineering the climate: the ethics of solar radiation management. Lexington, Plymouth, UK, pp 189–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowden G (2010) Rock, paper, scissors: uncertainty, innovation, and the evolving ecoloy of climate change discourse. Proc Media Ecol Ass 11:67–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown MB (2015) Policizing science: conceptions of politics in science and technology studies. Soc Stud Sci 45(1):3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714556694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brzoska M (2009) The securitization of climate change and the power of conceptions of security. Sicherheit Frieden 27(3):137–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brzoska M, Oels A (2011) Versicherheitlichung des Klimawandels? Die Konstruktion des Klimawandels als Sicherheitsbedrohung und ihre politischen Folgen. In: Brzoska M, Kalinowski M, Matthies V, Meyer B (eds) Klimawandel und Konflikte. Versicherheitlichung versus präventive Friedenspolitik? Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck HJ (2013) Climate engineering: spectacle, tragedy or solution? A content analysis of news media framing. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 166–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueger C (2013) Actor-network theory, methodology, and international organization. Int Political Sociol 7(3):338–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzan B, Waever O, De Wilde J (1998) Security. a new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldeira K, Keith DW (2010) The Need for climate engineering research. Iss Sci Technol Fall 2010:57–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr W, Yung L, Preston CJ (2014) Swimming upstream: Engaging the American public early on climate engineering. Bull Atomic Sci 70(3):38–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340214531180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong D, Druckman JN (2007a) Framing theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci 10:103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong D, Druckman JN (2007b) A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. J Commun 57(1):99–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen MJ (2011) Is the UK preparing for ‘war’? Military metaphors, personal carbon allowances, and consumption rationing in historical perspective. Clim Change 104(2):199–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. Frances Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly WE (2013) The ‘new materialism’ and the fragility of things. Millenium J Int Stud 41(3):399–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Coole D (2013) Agentic capacities and capacious historical materialism: thinking with new materialisms in the political sciences. Millenium: J Int Stud 41(3):451–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen JP, Holt R, Zundel M (2011) The role of analogy and metaphor in the framing and legitimation of strategic change. Org Stud 32(12):1701–1716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corner A, Pidgeon N (2010) Geoengineering the climate: the social and ethical implications. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Devel 52(1):24–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Corner A, Pidgeon N (2015) Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Clim Change 130:425–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1148-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corry O (2012). Securitization and ‘riskification’: second-order security and the politics of climate change. Millenium J Int Stud 40(2):235–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross MAD (2013) Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later. Rev Int Stud 39(1):137–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210512000034

  • Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy Dilemma. Clim Change 77:211–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cudworth E, Hobden S (2013) Of parts and wholes: international relations beyond the human. Millenium J Int Stud 41(3):430–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalby S (2014) Rethinking geopolitics: climate security in the anthropocene. Global Policy 5(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detraz N, Betsill MM (2009) Climate change and environmental security: for whom the discourse shifts. Int Stud Perspect 10:303–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donk A, Metag J, Kohring M, Marcinkowski F (2012) Framing emerging technologies: risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German press. Sci Commun 34(1):5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011417892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman JN (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Polit Behav 23(3):225–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman JN (2004) Political prefernce formation: competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. Am Polit Sci Rev 98(4):671–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman JN (2011) What’s it all about?: framing in political science. In: Keren G (ed) Perspectives on framing. Psychology Press, New York et al., pp 279–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman JN, Nelson KR (2003) Framing and deliberation: how citizens’ conversations limit Elite influence. Am J Polit Sci 47(4):729–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS (2005) The politics of the earth. environmental discourses, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS (2006) Deliberative global politics. Discourse and democracy in a divided world. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman M (1993) Contestable categories and public opinion. Polit Commun 10(3):231–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelkamp S, Glaab K (2015) Writing norms: constructivist norm research and the politics of ambiguity. Alternat Global Local Polit 40(3–4):201–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375415612270

  • Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entman RM (2004) Projections of power: framing news, public opinion, and US foreign policy. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Entman RM (2010) Framing media power. In: D’Angelo P, Kuypers JA (eds) Doing news framing analysis. Routledge, New York and London, pp 331–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore M, Sikkink K (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. Int Org 52(4):887–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson WA (2005) Book review of Robert M. Entman’s projections of power. Public Opin Q 69(2):324–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson WA, Modigliani A (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. Am J Sociol 95(1):1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner SM (2013b) Geoengineering and moral schizophrenia. What is the question? In: Burns WCG, Strauss AL (eds) Climate change geoengineering. philosophical perspectives, legal issues, and governance frameworks. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 11–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy 33:897–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2007) Transformations of large technical systems: a multilevel analysis of the Dutch highway system (1950–2000). Sci Technol Human Values 32(2):123–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2012) A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. J Transp Geogr 24:471–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2014) Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult Soc 31(5):21–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48(6):781–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Grauvogel J, Diez T (2014) Framing und Versicherheitlichung: Die diskursive Konstruktion des Klimawandels. Zeitschrift für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung 3(2):203–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gschwend T, Schimmelfennig F (2007) Forschungsdesign in der Politikwissenschaft: ein Dialog zwischen Theorie und Daten. In: Gschwend T, Schimmelfennig F (eds) Forschungsdesign in der Politikwissenschaft: Probleme - Strategien - Anwendungen. Campus, Frankfurt am Main, pp 13–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta A, Möller I (2018) De facto governance: how authoritative assessments construct climate engineering as an object of governance. Environ Polit. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1452373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas PM (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Org 46(1):1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer M (1997) The politics of environmental discourse. Ecological modernization and the policy process. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer M (2006) Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. In: Van den Brink M, Metze T (eds) Words matter in policy and planning. Discourse theory and method in the social sciences. KNAG, Utrecht, pp 65–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall T (2012) Electronic voting. In: Kersting N (ed) Electronic democracy. Barbara Budrich, Opladen, pp 153–176

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton C (2013) Earthmasters. The dawn of the age of climate engineering. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay C (2007) Why we hate politics. Polity, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay C (2014) Depoliticisation as process, governance as practice: what did the ‘first wave’ get wrong and do we need a ‘second wave’ to put it right? Policy Politics 42(2):293–311. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557314X13959960668217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger M (1954) Die Frage nach der Technik. In: Heidegger M (ed) Vorträge und Aufsätze. Pfullingen, Günter Neske

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyward C, Rayner S (2013) Apocalypse Nicked! Climate geoengineering governance working paper series, 006

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpert U (2016) Introduction. In: Hilpert U (ed) Routledge handbook on politics and technology. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis M, Smith S (1990) Explaining and understanding in international relations. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe R (1999) Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Sci Public Policy 26(3):201–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe R (2005) Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poeisis Prax 3(3):199–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton JB (2013) Geoengineering and the myth of unilateralism: pressures and prospects for international cooperation. In: Burns WCG, Strauss AL (eds) Climate change geoenegineering: philosophical perspectives, legal issues, and governance frameworks. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, pp 168–181

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Horton JB (2015) The emergency framing of solar geoenengineering: time for a different approach. Anthropocene Rev Prepubl. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019615579922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton JB, Keith DW, Honegger M (2016) Implications of the Paris agreement for carbon dioxide removal and solar geoengineering. Harvard project on climate agreements—viewpoints

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton JB, Reynolds J, Buck HJ, Callies DE, Schäfer S, Keith DW et al (2018) Solar geoengineering and democracy. Global Environ Politics 18(3):5–24. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00466

  • Hulme M (2008) The conquering of climate: discourses of fear and their dissolution. Geograph J 174(1):5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme M (2014) Can science fix climate change? A case against climate engineering. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd I (1999) Legitimacy and authority in international politics. Int Org 53(2):379–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huttunen S, Hildén M (2014) Framing the controversial: geoengineering in academic literature. Sci Commun 36(3):3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jachtenfuchs M (1996a) Frames and learning. In: Jachtenfuchs M (ed) International policy-making as a learning process? The european union and the greenhouse effect. Ashgate, Aldershot et al., pp 23–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Jachtenfuchs M (1996b) A methodology for frame analysis. In: Jachtenfuchs M (ed) International policy-making as a learning process? The european union and the greenhouse effect. Ashgate, Aldershot et al., pp 43–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen KL (2015) Experimentation in humanitarian locations: UNHCR and biomtric registration of Afghan refugees. Sec Dial 46(2):144–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jann W, Wegrich K (2007) Theories of the policy cycle. In: Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (1987) Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc Stud Sci 17(2):195–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (2004a) The idiom of co-production. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London and New York, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (2004b) Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: Jasanoff S (ed.), States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London and New York, pp 13–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (2015) Science and technology studies. In: Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E (eds) Research handbook on climate governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham et al., pp 36–48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski A, Coupland N (2006) The discourse reader, 2nd edn. Routledge, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol 39(4):341–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith DW (2013) A case for climate engineering. Boston Review Cambridge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler O, Daase C (2008) From insecurity to uncertainty: risk and the paradox of security politics. Alternatives 33:211–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintisch E (2010) Hack the Planet. Science’s best hope—or worst nightmare—for averting climate Catastrophe. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter J (2015) Technofix, plan B or ultima ratio? A review of the social science literature on climate engineering technologies. INSIS Occasional Papers Series, India

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter J (2018) Climate engineering and political decision-making: the importance of polarity in the academic debate. INoGOV policy brief

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G (2014) The all new don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate, 2nd edn. Chelsea Green Publishing, Chelsea, VT

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapid Y (1989) The Third debate: on the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. Int Stud Quart 33:235–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (1996) On actor-network theory: a few clarifications. Soziale Welt 47(4):369–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Launder B, Thompson JMT (2008) Preface. Philosop Trans Royal Soc A 366(1882):3841–3842. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee C-J, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281474

  • Levy DL, Spicer A (2013) Contested imaginaries and the cultural political economy of climate change. Organization 20(5):659–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy JS (2003) Applications of prospect theory to political science. Synthese 135:215–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnér B-O, Wibeck V (2015) Dual high-stake emerging technologies: a review of the climate engineering research literature. WIREs Climate Change 6:255–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litfin K (2000) Environment, wealth, and autority: global climate change and emerging modes of Legitimation. Int Stud Rev 2(2):119–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd ID, Oppenheimer M (2014) On the design of an international governance framework for geoengineering. Global Environ Polit 14(2):45–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann L (2013) Interpretive openness and climate action in an age of market environmentalism. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 72–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Long J, Loy F, Morgan MG (2015) Policy: start research on climate engineering. Nature 518(7537)

    Google Scholar 

  • Low S (2017) The futures of climate engineering. Earth’s Fut 5:67–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucke FV, Wellmann Z, Diez T (2014) What’s at stake in securitizing climate change? Towards a differentiated approach. Geopolitics 19(4):857–884

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucke FV, Wellmann Z, Diez T (2016) Klimakämpfe: Eine komparative Studie der Versicherheitlichung von Klimawandel. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 23(2):112–143. https://doi.org/10.5771/0946-7165-2016-2-112

  • Lundborg T, Vaughan-Williams N (2015) New materialisms, discourse analysis, and international relations: a radical intertextual approach. Rev Int Stud 41:3–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luokkanen M, Huttunen S, Hildén M (2014) Geoengineering, news media and metaphors: framing the controversial. Public Understand Sci 23(8):966–981. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513475966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markusson N (2013) Tensions in framings of geoengineering: constitutive diversity and ambivalence. Climate geoengineering governance working paper series, 003

    Google Scholar 

  • Markusson N, Ginn F, Ghaleigh NS, Scott V (2013) ‘In case of emergency press here’: framing geoengineering as a response to dangerous climate change. WIREs Clim Change 5(2):281–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markusson N, Wong P-H (2015) Geoengineering governance, the linear model of innovation, and the accompanying geoengineering approach. Climate geoengineering governance working paper series, 020

    Google Scholar 

  • Masco J (2010) Bad weather: on planetary crisis. Soc Stud Sci 40(1):7–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709341598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matzner N, Barben D (2018) Verantwortungsvoll das Klima manipulieren? Unsicherheit und Verantwortung im Diskurs um Climate Engineering. In: Janich N, Rhein L (eds) Unsicherheit als Herauforderung für die Wissenschaft. Peter Lang, Berlin et al., pp 143–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer M (2012) Chaotic climate change and security. Int Polit Soc 6(2):165–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald M (2012) The failed securitization of climate change in Australia. Australian J Polit Sci 47(4):579–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald M (2013) Discourses of climate security. Political Geogr 33:42–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren D (2013). Mirror mirror, on the wall: Fairness and justice in geo-engineering discourses. Paper presented at the Science in Public Notthingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Mert A (2013) Discoursive interplay and co-constitution. Carbonification of environmental discourses. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 23–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Methmann C, Rothe D (2012) Politics for the day after tomorrow: the logic of apocalypse in global climate politics. Sec Dial 43(4):323–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Methmann C, Rothe D (2013) Apocalypse now! From exception rhetoric to risk management in global climate politics. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches in global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 105–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (2013b) Introduction. How and why to deconstruct the greenhouse. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B. (2013c). Reflections. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 248–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller C (2001) Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci Technol Human Values 26(4):478–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morozov E (2014) To save everything, click here. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Morth U (2000) Competing frames in the European commission—the case of the defence industry and equipment issue. J European Public Policy 7(2):173–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutlu CE (2013) The material turn—introduction. In: Mutlu CE, Salter MB (eds) Research methods in critical security studies. Routledge, New York, pp 385–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson TE, Oxley ZM, Clawson RA (1997) Towards a psychology of framing effects. Polit Behav 19(3):221–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerlich B, Jaspal R (2012) Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor Symbol 27(2):131–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nexon DH, Pouliot V (2013) Things of networks: situating ANT in international relations. Int Political Sociol 7(3):342–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC (2010a) Framing science. A new paradigm in public engagement. In: Kahlor L, Stout PA (eds) Communicating science. New agendas in communication. Routledge, New York, pp 40–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC (2010b) Knowledge into action. Framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In: D’Angelo P, Kuypers JA (eds) Doing news framing analysis. Empirical and theoretical perspectives. Routledge, New York and London, pp 43–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A (2003) The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Press/Politics 8(2):36–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X02251047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC, Mooney C (2007) Framing science. Science 316(5821):56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu M (2006) A further critique of cumulative prospect theory and related approaches. Appl Math Comput 179:451–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Oels A (2012) From ‘securitization’ of climate change to ‘climatization’ of the security field: comparing three theoretical perspectives. In: Scheffran J, Brzoska M, Brauch HG, Link PM, Schilling J (eds) Climate change, human security and violent conflict. Challenges for societal stability (Hexagon series on human and environmental security and peace, vol. 8). Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Oels A (2016) Resisting the climate security discourse. In: O’Lear S, Dalby S (eds) Reframing climate change. Construcing ecological geopolitics. Routledge, London, pp 188–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Oels A, von Lucke F (2015) Gescheiterte Versicherheitlichung oder Sicherheit im Wandel: Hilft uns die Kopenhagener Schule beim Thema Klimawandel? Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 22(1):43–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldham P, Szerszynski B, Stilgoe J, Brown C, Eacott B, Yuille A (2014) Mapping the landscape of climate engineering. Philosop Trans Royal Soc A 372(2031). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0065

  • Parsons RJ (2010) Climate change: the hottest issue in security studies? Risk HazardCrisis Public Policy 1(1):87–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter KE, Hulme M (2013) The emergence of the geoengineering debate in the UK print media: a frame analysis. Geograph J 179(4):342–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouliot V (2010) Materials of practice: nuclear warheads, rhetorical commonplace and committee meetings in Russian-Atlantic relations. Coop Conflict 45(3):294–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner S (1991) A cultural perspective on the structure and implementataion of global environmental agreement. Eval Rev 15(1):75–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner S (1995) A conceptual map of human values for climate change decision making. In: Katama A (ed) Equity and social considerations related to climate change. Papers presented at the IPCCC working group III workshop. ICIPE Science Press, Nairobi, pp 57–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Rein M, Schön D (1993) Reframing policy discourse. In: Fischer F, Forester J (eds) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press, Durham et al., pp 145–166

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds J (2015) A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern. Anthrop Rev2(2):174–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614554304

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change: resources and technology, vol 2. Battelle Press, Columbus, pp 327–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea. Bull Atomic Sci 64(2):14–18. https://doi.org/10.2968/064002006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothe D (2011) Managing climate risks or risking a managerial climate: state, security and governance in the international climate regime. Int Rel 25(3):330–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117811415486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothe D (2015) Von weitem sieht man besser. Satelittensensoren und andere Akteure der Versicherheitlichung. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 22(1):97–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie JG (2014) Global governance and ‘new governance theory’: lessons from business and human rights. Glob Gov 20:5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlipphak B (2011) Was ist ein Frame?—Zu den Grundlagen des Frame-Ansaztes in den Sozialwissenschaften. In: Schlipphak B (ed) Framing Ideology. Die Kommunikation ideologischer Positionierungen zwischen Parteien, Wählern und Medien. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 21–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholte S, Vasileiadou E, Petersen A (2013) Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: how newspaper frames are changing. J Int Environ Sci 10(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Schot J, Kanger L (2018) Deep transitions: emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality. Res Policy 47:1045–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott D (2012) Insurance policy or technological fix? The ethical implications of framing solar radiation management. In: Preston CJ (ed) Engineering the climate: the ethics of solar radiation management. Lexington, Plymouth, UK, pp 151–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott D (2013) Philosophy of technology and geoengineering. Geoengineering our climate working paper and opinion article series

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott SV (2008) Securitizing climate change: international legal implications and obstacles. Cambridge Rev Int Aff 21(4):603–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570802452946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd J, Cox P, Haigh D, Keith DW, Launder B, Mace G et al (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikka T (2012) A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy. Critical Dis Stud 9(2):163–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smit WA (2006) Military technologies and politics. In: Goodin RE, Tilly C (eds) The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), pp 722–744

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman PM, Theriault SM (2004) The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In: Saris WE, Sniderman PM (eds) Studies in public opinion. Attidues, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, pp 133–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler M, Schieder S (2010) Theorien in der Lehre von den internationalen Beziehungen. In: Schieder S, Spindler M (eds) Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen 3, Auflage edn. Barbara Budrich, Opladen, pp 9–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffek J (2003) The legitimation of international governance: a discourse approach. European J Int Rel 9(2):249–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan B (2013) How to trade ‘not cutting down trees’. A governmentality perspective on the commodification of avoided deforestation. In: Methmann C, Rothe D, Stephan B (eds) Interpretive approaches to global climate governance. (De)constructing the greenhouse. Routledge, London, pp 57–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change. The stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling A (2014) Transforming power: social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Res Soc Sci 1:83–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szerszynski B, Galarraga M (2013) Geoengineering knowledge: interdisciplinarity and the shaping of climate engineering research. Environ Plann A 45:2817–2824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szerszynski B, Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Owen R, Stilgoe J (2013) Why solar radiation management geoengineering and democracy won’t mix. Environ Plann A 45:2809–2816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thakur R (2015) Nuclear weapons and international security: collected essays. Taylor and Francis, Florence

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trombetta MJ (2008) Environmental security and climate change: analysing the discourse. Cambridge Rev Int Aff 21(4):585–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trout BT (1975) Rhetoric revisisted. Political legitimation and the cold war. Int Stud Q 19(3):251–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Sci New Ser 211(4481):453–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5:297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uther S (2014) Diskurse des Climate Engineering. Argumente, Akteure und Koalitionen in Deutschland und Großbritannien. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wijk J, Fischhendler I (2015) The construction of urgency discourse around mega-projects: the Isreali case. Policy Sci Forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbong G, Geels FW (2007) The ongoing energy transition: lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004). Energy Policy 35:1025–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waever O (1995) Securitization and desecuritization. In: Lipschutz RD (ed) On security. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, pp 46–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Waever O (1996) The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate. In: Smith S, Booth K, Zalewski M (eds) International theory. Positivism and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 149–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright J, Mann G (2012) Climate Leviathan. Antipode 45(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1980 [1922]) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie (5. Revidierte Studienausgabe ed.). Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg AM (1966) Can technology replace social engineering? Bull Atomic Sci 22(10):4–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt A (1998) On constitution and causation in international relations. Rev Int Stud 24(Special Issue):101–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt A (1999) Scientific realism and social kinds. In: Wendt A (ed) Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 47–91

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Willsher K (2017) Paris mayor unveils plan to restrict traffic and pedestrianise city centre. The Guardian

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner L (1977) Autonomous technology. Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner L (1980) Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109(1):121–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood M, Flinders M (2014) Rethinking depoliticisation: beyond the governmental. Policy Politics 42(2):151–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zürn M (2012) Global governance as multi-level governance. In: Lewi-Faur D (ed) The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 730–744

    Google Scholar 

  • Zürn M, Schäfer S (2013) The paradox of climate engineering. Global Policy 4(3):266–277

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Political Science, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany

    Judith Kreuter

Authors
  1. Judith Kreuter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith Kreuter .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kreuter, J. (2021). Ideas and Objects, Meaning and Causation—Frame Analysis from a Modernist Social Constructivism Perspective. In: Climate Engineering as an Instance of Politicization. Springer Climate. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60340-3_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation