Browsing by Subject "Gruppendiskussion"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1

Kommunikationsprobleme zwischen Landwirtschaft und Naturschutz in Deutschland und ihre Ursachen
(2022) Menauer, Verena Theresa; Schweiger, Wolfgang
Communication is considered a key prerequisite for anchoring nature conservation in agriculture in the long term. However, the longlasting, sometimes heated disputes between ac-tors from both sectors in Germany show clear deficits, especially in public communication. Instead of finding solutions and compromises, the fronts are hardening in many places. The study aimed to identify and detail the existing communication problems and their causes. A coherent framework of communication studies that explicitly deals with communication problems is missing. Nevertheless, there are a number of theoretical approaches and research traditions that examine individual aspects of communication problems or, complementarily, deal with the conditions for successful communication. Of outstanding importance is research on public discourse – it forms the main theoretical point of reference of this work. Studies on journalistic news selection, approaches to strategic communication and research on group identities also appear to be relevant. Within the framework of a qualitative content analysis, 160 publications from the years 2019 and 2020 of the four relevant groups of actors (interest-led actors, state actors, news and specialist journalism) and the available user comments were examined. Thus, a current inventory of the existing communication problems was created. The analysis also provided initial indications of their possible causes. Subsequently, four group discussions were held with representatives from agriculture and nature conservation. The results of the content analysis were discussed and deepened. The initial findings of the content analysis were thus deepened, questioned and supplemented by the subjective perceptions and assessments of those affected. The results show that the observed problems and their causes are manifold: Firstly, actors are often unwilling to reach a rationally motivated agreement. Instead of openly engaging with all actors involved in the dis-course, they refuse to talk or try to influence individual target groups through strategic-manipulative communication. Secondly, not all topics, events and presentation perspectives have the same chance of being publicly discussed. Both news and specialist journalistic media usually only report on negative, conflictrelated issues, their reports are sometimes tendentious and limited to presenting one of several possible perspectives. Thirdly, it became apparent that the manner of communication is not always appropriate because actors do not sufficiently substantiate their positions with arguments, respond sufficiently to topics and arguments of the opposing side or express themselves appropriately. The following aspects can be named as causes for the lack of discourse quality: (1) Farmers seem to have an enormous distrust of outsiders, but also of their own professional representation. More or less all actors are met with great suspicion. (2) Especially among agricultural actors, emotional and financial concerns seem to play a major role. As a result, they sometimes find it difficult to communicate objectively and to accept that non-agricultural actors are also heard in the pub-lic discourse. (3) The actors involved sometimes lack the necessary knowledge to be able to participate optimally in the discourse. This applies to actors from agriculture and nature conservation as well as to journalists. (4) The media, interest groups and state actors are subject to various path dependencies and internal organisational constraints that are not only, but primarily of an economic nature. In some cases, they have the consequence that actors cannot act or communicate freely and discourse-oriented. (5) Moreover, various unresolved conflicts of objectives lead to problems. For example, actors from agriculture and nature conservation are sometimes confronted with the problem of having to pursue conflicting interests at the same time. (6) Group-specific differences in behaviour and evaluation can be cited as a further cause. Future studies should focus on the aspect of lack of knowledge, which negatively impacts the discourse quality in several respects.