Considering the interactive aspect of discursive institutional analysis,
it is striking how persistent the Conservation and Forestry frames have
remained throughout the numerous – allegedly collaborative – policy
and planning processes both prior to the Dialogue process, and after it.
The coordinative discourse among the policy actors, as Schmidt (2008,
2010) calls it, has lead to compromises and agreements, but not to any
significant re-framing, or changes in the content of the discourses.
While the ENGOs managed to convince the German publishing houses
of their frame and thereby gained access to the Dialogue process, no
major shift seems to have taken place in the frames of either the
Considering the interactive aspect of discursive institutional analysis,it is striking how persistent the Conservation and Forestry frames haveremained throughout the numerous – allegedly collaborative – policyand planning processes both prior to the Dialogue process, and after it.The coordinative discourse among the policy actors, as Schmidt (2008,2010) calls it, has lead to compromises and agreements, but not to anysignificant re-framing, or changes in the content of the discourses.While the ENGOs managed to convince the German publishing housesof their frame and thereby gained access to the Dialogue process, nomajor shift seems to have taken place in the frames of either the
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..