Methodological framework. 1.3.1 Legislative Instruments, International Customary Law and General Principles of Law
Methodological framework. The Action-in-Context (AiC) framework was used to guide field data collection and analysis. Developed by Xx Xxxxx (1992) as a tool for analysing the social causal chains behind environmental problems, the AiC is based on the progressive contextualisation concept (Xxxxx 1983). The AiC framework focuses on environmental actors (individuals, households, communities and organisations) and their decision-making criteria. It acknowledges that decisions are made after consideration of social, cultural, economic and political factors. AiC-based problem analysis starts with the identification of action(s) behind the problem before one considers the wider context characterised by actors and underlying factors that influence the actors’ decisions. The core of AiC can be presented as a triangular structure (Fig 1), showing that actors act in the way they do because they have (1) options to select and (2) motivations to act. Autonomy: - capitals - restrictions Implementable options Objectified motivations Motivations (advantages and appropriateness as perceived and valued by the actor) Action Environmental problem Potential options Macro-structure Macro-environment Micro-structure Micro-environment
Methodological framework. Each step – the examination of the form and meaning, and of the authority that introduces and conventionalizes changes – roughly corresponds to the three levels of discourse analysis, as outlined by Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx. These are (1) textual analysis, (2) analysis of discourse practice, and (3) analysis of social practice.47 Textual analysis involves studying lexical features of a text;48 from the practical point of view, in all the case studies the term “text” is broadly defined and includes printed materials such as newspaper texts, blog posts, published speeches, and ‘manufactured’ data, such as interviews and video transcripts. The second level is the examination of discourse practices: “how authors of texts draw on already existing discourses and genres to create a text”, and “how receivers of texts also apply available discourses and genres in the consumption and interpretation of the texts”.49 In this stage, the focus lies primarily on studying the links to other texts (intertextuality) and other discourses (interdiscursivity), which enables us to define the meanings assigned to religious vocabulary. It is by invoking topics, events and actors that religious vocabulary acquires new connotations and becomes associated with particular identities. 50 At this level, I examine various rhetorical and translation strategies of discourse actors and their references to dominant discourses and important texts in the respective religious communities and in Russian society in general. Finally, the third level comprises the analysis of social practice. As argued by Xxxx Xxxxx and Xxxx Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxxxxx, religious discourse can be described as “the 47 X. Xxxxxxxxxx, Discourse and Social Change (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), p. 73.; also R. Wodak and X. Xxxxx, Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis (London: SAGE, 2009). 48 Xxxxxxxxxx, Discourse and Social Change, pp. 76–77, 185–94. 49 X. Xxxxxxxxx and X. Xxxxxxxx, Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method (London: Sage Publications, 2002), p. 69. 50 X. Xxxxxx, “Intertextuality and Interdiscursivity in the Discourse of Muslim Televangelists: The Case Study of Xxxxx Xxxxx,” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 6:1 (2012), 76-95. Here p. 81; X. Xxxxx, “Religion, Discourse and Power: A Contribution towards a Critical Sociology of Religion,” Critical Sociology 40:6 (2013), 855-72. Here p. 863; Xxxxx and Xxxxx, Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis, p. 90. rhetorical corollary of struggles for a...
Methodological framework. Participatory methodologies are an effective tool in the process of detecting the real and diverse needs of different users of the public space, and work as bridges that lead to truly inclusive environments that can be enjoyed by all people on equal terms. These processes lead to both the training and empowerment of the people as well as the recognition of these urban inequalities, in order to show that new alternatives, actions, processes and initiatives with broad and inclusive perspectives can contribute to mitigate or reverse this inequality in favour of a more egalitarian city, demonstrating that another kind of city, a fairer one, is possible. To achieve this, municipalities should open institutionalised channels and spaces for the broad, direct, equitable and democratic participation of citizens in the process of planning, elaboration, approval, management and evaluation of public policies. Conferences, consultations, public debates and the correct functioning of collegiate bodies must be guaranteed, and processes carried out by people’s initiatives must be allowed, recognised and taken into account when proposing new legislation and urban development plans. Citizen participation experiences have had and still have a collective dimension. There is no doubt that participation is a fundamental pillar of territorial processes. But participation must be directed and guided by professionals in the field, it must be a dialogue between the people who live in the territory, the people who manage it, researchers and professional associations that ensure the implementation of good practices and politicians who manage public policies. All the agents get together in a participative process, and this comprises the totality that the equal right to our territory means today. Among the tools to channel participatory actions, we can find two modalities: - Classic participatory face-to-face actions. Direct contact with stakeholders is a classic approach by means of participatory workshops. - Distributed Participatory Design (DPD) and Mass Participatory Design (MPD). Both are an evolution to a more dynamic context from the classic modality, which allows a decentralised and large-scale citizen participation effort using web- based tools. In this case, the objective is to gather multiple inputs in a cost- effective manner. PlastiCircle combines both approaches to obtain best results.
Methodological framework. 2.1 Definition of the scope of the project – what is peer production?
