Overcoming Climate Gridlock: Perspectives of Climate Leaders on How to Achieve Social Change During Persistent Failure in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite sustained efforts of social movements worldwide, there has been a lack of progress on mitigating climate change. Recent research examined the psychological consequences of one‐off collective action failures, but there has been little research on how to overcome persistent failure to create social change. This qualitative research (N = 26) interviews leaders, founders, experienced advocates, and philanthropists from organisations ranging from direct action to environmental non‐governmental organisations in the Australian climate movement to gain insights into what they believe the movement needs to achieve its goals. Participants focused on strategies both internal and external to the movement. Our thematic analysis revealed two key internal themes: (1) strengthening the movement through movement building, diversity, and coalition building; and (2) building resilience and flexibility by gaining more resources, promoting well‐being, and developing more dynamic strategies and tactics. The three critical external themes were (1) speaking and acting ‘truth to power’ by addressing state capture and using government leadership; (2) achieving between‐system change by addressing economic systems and social norms; and (3) alignment with nature by respecting the natural world, incorporating climate disasters in communication programs, and expanding personal relevance. We discuss the applied and theoretical implications of our results. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".