The art of uncomfortable engagement: towards a methodology for conflictual theatre dialogues about climate change controversies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change is increasingly proving to be a deeply polarizing and conflict-ridden societal issue. As a response to complex or “wicked” societal issues such as climate change, science communication research has developed various approaches to meaningfully engage publics and stakeholders in processes of scientific and technological development. Building on Chantal Mouffe’s conception of agonistic pluralism, we argue that while providing a great source of creativity, inspiration and impact, the “cocreative” focus of many of these approaches makes it difficult to keep conflict, tension, and controversy at the forefront of engagement practices. The concern is that these practices of cocreation leave the fundamentally conflictual nature of climate change unaddressed, and consequently provide little guidance for learning how to deal with conflict and prevent it from becoming antagonistic.<br/><br/>There is therefore a great need for exploring engagement approaches that make the conflictual nature of climate change salient and “productive”, and we believe theatre dialogues have great potential to contribute to this objective. In our contribution, we report on the outcomes of interviews held to map three climate change-related controversies and stakeholders’ experiences of conflict within them, and on how these key findings inform the development of an innovative form of theatre dialogues in which sticking with the tension is key.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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 teacher head, 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".