Fighting talk

Organisational discourses of the conflict over raptors and grouse moor management in Scotland

Isla D. Hodgson*, Steve M. Redpath, Anke Fischer, Juliette Young

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Conflict is currently one of the greatest challenges facing wildlife conservation. Whilst conflicts may first appear to concern wildlife, they are often embedded within wider debates surrounding land use, land ownership, and the governance of natural resources. Disputes over the impacts or management of a species therefore become symbols for conflicts that are fundamentally between the divergent interests and values of the people involved. NGOs representing the interests of local stakeholders can become actors within the conflict, often utilising publicly available platforms such as websites and social media in an attempt to influence over others and gain a dominant foothold in the debate. Here, we examined discourses of organisations in relation to a contentious and high-profile case of conflict in Scotland, that occurs between interests of raptor conservation and grouse moor management. News articles sourced from the websites of six organisations – identified as key voices in the debate – were subjected to discourse analysis. 36 storylines were drawn from common phrases and statements within the text. Storylines demonstrated a clear divide in the discourse; organisations differed not only in their portrayal of central issues, but also in their representation of other actors. Discourses were strategic; organisations interpreted the situation in ways that either supported their own interests and agendas, or damaged the image of opposing parties. We argue that discursive contestation at this level could be damaging to mitigation efforts – widening barriers between stakeholders and risking already fragile relationships. This in turn reduces the likelihood of consensus and impacts on successful decision-making and policy implementation. We conclude that conflict managers should be aware of the contestation between high-profile actors, and the ramifications this may have for conflict mitigation processes. An understanding of what constitutes these discourses should therefore be used as a foundation to improve dialogue and collaborative management.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)332-343
Number of pages12
JournalLand Use Policy
Volume77
Early online date4 Jun 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Sep 2018

Fingerprint

grouse
raptor
fighting
birds of prey
Scotland
discourse
management
stakeholders
land ownership
collaborative management
social networks
wildlife management
governance
website
natural resources
stakeholder
mitigation
conservation
decision making
wildlife

Keywords

  • Conflict mitigation
  • Conservation conflicts
  • Discourse analysis
  • Organisations
  • Raptors
  • Stakeholders

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Forestry
  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Fighting talk : Organisational discourses of the conflict over raptors and grouse moor management in Scotland. / Hodgson, Isla D.; Redpath, Steve M.; Fischer, Anke; Young, Juliette.

In: Land Use Policy, Vol. 77, 30.09.2018, p. 332-343.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{df33ee35f22749a69919ae6bf79fe102,
title = "Fighting talk: Organisational discourses of the conflict over raptors and grouse moor management in Scotland",
abstract = "Conflict is currently one of the greatest challenges facing wildlife conservation. Whilst conflicts may first appear to concern wildlife, they are often embedded within wider debates surrounding land use, land ownership, and the governance of natural resources. Disputes over the impacts or management of a species therefore become symbols for conflicts that are fundamentally between the divergent interests and values of the people involved. NGOs representing the interests of local stakeholders can become actors within the conflict, often utilising publicly available platforms such as websites and social media in an attempt to influence over others and gain a dominant foothold in the debate. Here, we examined discourses of organisations in relation to a contentious and high-profile case of conflict in Scotland, that occurs between interests of raptor conservation and grouse moor management. News articles sourced from the websites of six organisations – identified as key voices in the debate – were subjected to discourse analysis. 36 storylines were drawn from common phrases and statements within the text. Storylines demonstrated a clear divide in the discourse; organisations differed not only in their portrayal of central issues, but also in their representation of other actors. Discourses were strategic; organisations interpreted the situation in ways that either supported their own interests and agendas, or damaged the image of opposing parties. We argue that discursive contestation at this level could be damaging to mitigation efforts – widening barriers between stakeholders and risking already fragile relationships. This in turn reduces the likelihood of consensus and impacts on successful decision-making and policy implementation. We conclude that conflict managers should be aware of the contestation between high-profile actors, and the ramifications this may have for conflict mitigation processes. An understanding of what constitutes these discourses should therefore be used as a foundation to improve dialogue and collaborative management.",
keywords = "Conflict mitigation, Conservation conflicts, Discourse analysis, Organisations, Raptors, Stakeholders",
author = "Hodgson, {Isla D.} and Redpath, {Steve M.} and Anke Fischer and Juliette Young",
note = "The authors would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge and sincerely thank the Macaulay Development Trust and the University of Aberdeen for funding this research and providing their continued support. We would also like to express our gratitude to three anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the earlier versions of this manuscript.",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.042",
language = "English",
volume = "77",
pages = "332--343",
journal = "Land Use Policy",
issn = "0264-8377",
publisher = "ELSEVIER APPL SCI PUBL LTD",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fighting talk

T2 - Organisational discourses of the conflict over raptors and grouse moor management in Scotland

AU - Hodgson, Isla D.

AU - Redpath, Steve M.

AU - Fischer, Anke

AU - Young, Juliette

N1 - The authors would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge and sincerely thank the Macaulay Development Trust and the University of Aberdeen for funding this research and providing their continued support. We would also like to express our gratitude to three anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the earlier versions of this manuscript.

PY - 2018/9/30

Y1 - 2018/9/30

N2 - Conflict is currently one of the greatest challenges facing wildlife conservation. Whilst conflicts may first appear to concern wildlife, they are often embedded within wider debates surrounding land use, land ownership, and the governance of natural resources. Disputes over the impacts or management of a species therefore become symbols for conflicts that are fundamentally between the divergent interests and values of the people involved. NGOs representing the interests of local stakeholders can become actors within the conflict, often utilising publicly available platforms such as websites and social media in an attempt to influence over others and gain a dominant foothold in the debate. Here, we examined discourses of organisations in relation to a contentious and high-profile case of conflict in Scotland, that occurs between interests of raptor conservation and grouse moor management. News articles sourced from the websites of six organisations – identified as key voices in the debate – were subjected to discourse analysis. 36 storylines were drawn from common phrases and statements within the text. Storylines demonstrated a clear divide in the discourse; organisations differed not only in their portrayal of central issues, but also in their representation of other actors. Discourses were strategic; organisations interpreted the situation in ways that either supported their own interests and agendas, or damaged the image of opposing parties. We argue that discursive contestation at this level could be damaging to mitigation efforts – widening barriers between stakeholders and risking already fragile relationships. This in turn reduces the likelihood of consensus and impacts on successful decision-making and policy implementation. We conclude that conflict managers should be aware of the contestation between high-profile actors, and the ramifications this may have for conflict mitigation processes. An understanding of what constitutes these discourses should therefore be used as a foundation to improve dialogue and collaborative management.

AB - Conflict is currently one of the greatest challenges facing wildlife conservation. Whilst conflicts may first appear to concern wildlife, they are often embedded within wider debates surrounding land use, land ownership, and the governance of natural resources. Disputes over the impacts or management of a species therefore become symbols for conflicts that are fundamentally between the divergent interests and values of the people involved. NGOs representing the interests of local stakeholders can become actors within the conflict, often utilising publicly available platforms such as websites and social media in an attempt to influence over others and gain a dominant foothold in the debate. Here, we examined discourses of organisations in relation to a contentious and high-profile case of conflict in Scotland, that occurs between interests of raptor conservation and grouse moor management. News articles sourced from the websites of six organisations – identified as key voices in the debate – were subjected to discourse analysis. 36 storylines were drawn from common phrases and statements within the text. Storylines demonstrated a clear divide in the discourse; organisations differed not only in their portrayal of central issues, but also in their representation of other actors. Discourses were strategic; organisations interpreted the situation in ways that either supported their own interests and agendas, or damaged the image of opposing parties. We argue that discursive contestation at this level could be damaging to mitigation efforts – widening barriers between stakeholders and risking already fragile relationships. This in turn reduces the likelihood of consensus and impacts on successful decision-making and policy implementation. We conclude that conflict managers should be aware of the contestation between high-profile actors, and the ramifications this may have for conflict mitigation processes. An understanding of what constitutes these discourses should therefore be used as a foundation to improve dialogue and collaborative management.

KW - Conflict mitigation

KW - Conservation conflicts

KW - Discourse analysis

KW - Organisations

KW - Raptors

KW - Stakeholders

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048475272&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.042

DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.042

M3 - Article

VL - 77

SP - 332

EP - 343

JO - Land Use Policy

JF - Land Use Policy

SN - 0264-8377

ER -