| author | bibliography | csl | date | title | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
apa-numeric-superscript-brackets.csl |
2024-02-13 |
Discourse Network Analysis: Bibliography |
This document contains references to publications using the method of
discourse network analysis or the software Discourse Network
Analyzer. Please feel free to submit
updates as pull requests or
issues. Please observe the
sorting order, fields, capitalization, and other characteristics of the
BibTeX entries under
references/references.bib
before contributing any citation entries.
1. Absi, A. (2023). Hope or hype? The framing of hydrogen technology in European media [Master's Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen School of Management]. https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/15084
2. Abzianidze, N. (2020). Us vs. Them as structural equivalence: Analysing nationalist discourse networks in the Georgian print media. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2605
3. Al Khazim, I., Kani, K. N. A., & Aurora, O. (2023). Sentiment of Indovac vaccine launch news on detik.com using discourse network analysis. Journal of Digital Media Communication, 2(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.35760/dimedcom.2023.v2i1.8278
4. Almiron, N., & Moreno, J. A. (2021). Think tanks neoliberales y falsos debates: La propuesta del impuesto a la carne para combatir la crisis climática. In D. Rodrigo-Cano, R. Mancinas Chávez, & R. Fernández Rial (Eds.), La comunicación del cambio climático, una herramienta ante el gran desafío (pp. 224–251). Dykinson. https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5093569#
5. Anshori, M., Pawito, Kartono, D. T., & Hastjarjo, S. (2023). Who says what? The role of the actor’s political position in ideograph construction. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 39(2), 354–372. https://doi.org/10.17576/jkmjc-2023-3902-20
6. Anwar, M. K., Zauhar, S., & Wanusmawatie, I. (2023). Dynamic governance based educational tourism development model in Indonesia. Erudio Journal of Educational Innovation, 10(2), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10464872
7. Arifianto, C., Tajuddien, R., Kustini, E., & Putri, S. (2024). A discourse network analysis: How are freelancers in Indonesia portrayed? Journal of Business Management and Economic Development, 2(1), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.59653/jbmed.v2i01.556
9. Bandau, S. L. (2021). Emerging institutions in the global space sector. An institutional logics approach [Master's Thesis, Utrecht University, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development]. https://doi.org/20.500.12932/1139
10. Bandelow, N. C., & Hornung, J. (2019). One discourse to rule them all? Narrating the agenda for labor market policies in France and Germany. Policy and Society, 38(3), 408–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1641379
11. Barnickel, C. (2019). Postdemokratisierung der Legitimationspolitik: Diskursnetzwerke in bundesdeutschen Großen Regierungserklärungen und Aussprachen 1949–2014. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25669-2
12. Barnickel, C. (2020). Vorstellungen legitimen Regierens: Legitimationspolitik in der Großen Regierungserklärung der 19. Wahlperiode im Vergleich. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 14(3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-020-00458-1
13. Baulenas, E. (2021). She’s a rainbow: Forest and water policy and management integration in Germany, Spain and Sweden. Land Use Policy, 101, 105182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105182
14. Belova, A. (2021). Another silver bullet for the energy transition? Discourse network analysis of German hydrogen debate [Master’s thesis, Department of International Relations; European Studies, Energy Policy Studies, Masaryk University]. https://is.muni.cz/th/upap7/
15. Belova, A., Quittkat, C., Lehotskỳ, L., Knodt, M., Osička, J., & Kemmerzell, J. (2023). The more the merrier? Actors and ideas in the evolution of German hydrogen policy discourse. Energy Research & Social Science, 97, 102965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.102965
16. Bhattacharya, C. (2020). Gatekeeping the plenary floor: Discourse network analysis as a novel approach to party control. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2611
17. Bhattacharya, C. (2023). Restrictive rules of speechmaking as a tool to maintain party unity: The case of oppressed political conflict in German parliament debates on the Euro crisis. Party Politics, 29(3), 554--569. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688221086226
18. Blažek, D. (2021). Does the climate matter? Discourse network analysis of climate delayism in the Czech Republic [Master’s thesis, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies]. https://is.muni.cz/th/zq777/
19. Blessing, A., Blokker, N., Haunss, S., Kuhn, J., Lapesa, G., & Padó, S. (2019). An environment for relational annotation of political debates. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, 105–110. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-3018
20. Boas, I. (2015). Climate migration and security: Securitisation as a strategy in climate change politics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315749228
21. Bodišová, Ľ. (2018). Európske záujmové skupiny a revízia smernice o energetickej efektívnosti – analỳza diskurzívnych sietí [Master's Thesis, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies]. https://is.muni.cz/th/rrnds/
22. Bossner, F., & Nagel, M. (2020). Discourse networks and dual screening: Analyzing roles, content and motivations in political Twitter conversations. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2573
23. Brandenberger, L. (2019). Predicting network events to assess goodness of fit of relational event models. Political Analysis, 27(4), 556–571. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.10
24. Breindl, Y. (2013). Discourse networks on state-mandated access blocking in Germany and France. Info, 15(6), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/info-03-2013-0011
25. Bresser, B. (2024). Transitions in the risk assessment regime: Prospects from the case of animal-free testing in the cosmetics industry [Master's Thesis, Utrecht University, Innovation Sciences]. https://doi.org/20.500.12932/45751
26. Broadbent, J., Sonnett, J., Botetzagias, I., Carson, M., Carvalho, A., Chien, Y.-J., Edling, C., Fisher, D. R., Giouzepas, G., Haluza-DeLay, R., Hazegawa, K., Hirschi, C., Horta, A., Ikeda, K., Jin, J., Ku, D., Lahsen, M., Lee, H.-C., Lin, T.-L. A., … Zhengyi, S. (2016). Conflicting climate change frames in a global field of media discourse. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116670660
27. Broadbent, J., & Vaughter, P. (2014). Inter-disciplinary analysis of climate change and society: A network approach. In M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, A. Rechkemmer, & E. A. Duke (Eds.), Understanding society and natural resources. Forging new strands of integration across the social sciences (pp. 203–228). Springer Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8959-2_10
28. Brugger, F., & Engebretsen, R. (2022). Defenders of the status quo: Making sense of the international discourse on transfer pricing methodologies. Review of International Political Economy, 29(1), 307–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1807386
29. Brugger, H., & Henry, A. D. (2021). Influence of policy discourse networks on local energy transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 39, 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.03.006
30. Brunner, L. (2021). Der Einfluss von Interessensgruppen auf die US-Außenpolitik. Ein Vergleich der Israelpolitik zwischen den Kabinetten Obama II und Trump [Master's Thesis, Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, Fakultät für Soziale und Politische Wissenschaften]. https://resolver.obvsg.at/urn:nbn:at:at-ubi:1-85613
31. Brutschin, E. (2013). Dynamics in EU policy-making: The liberalization of the European gas market [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Konstanz, Department of Politics; Public Administration]. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-253135
32. Buckton, C. H., Fergie, G., Leifeld, P., & Hilton, S. (2019). A discourse network analysis of UK newspaper coverage of the “sugar tax” debate before and after the announcement of the soft drinks industry levy. BMC Public Health, 19(490), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6799-9
33. Cassiers, T. (2018). “Politics... Or just work”? On the role of territoriality in policy networks. The case of transportation policies in the cross-border metropolitan regions of Brussels and Luxembourg [Doctoral Dissertation, KU Leuven, Division of Geography; Tourism]. https://kuleuven.limo.libis.be/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=lirias2000485&context=SearchWebhook&vid=32KUL_KUL:Lirias&search_scope=lirias_profile&tab=LIRIAS&adaptor=SearchWebhook&lang=en
34. Černỳ, O. (2018). Limity české energetické tranzice v politické perspektivě: Případ těžby uhlí [Diploma Thesis, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies]. https://is.muni.cz/th/x2ppa/
35. Černỳ, O., & Ocelı́k, P. (2020). Incumbents’ strategies in media coverage: A case of the Czech coal policy. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2610
36. Cicko, M. (2018). Analỳza diskurzívnych sietí v energetickej politike Českej republiky [Master's Thesis, Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta sociálnı́ch studiı́]. https://is.muni.cz/th/v3fey/
37. Ciordia Morandeira, A. (2020). Less divided after ETA? Green networks in the Basque country between 2007 and 2017 [PhD thesis, University of Trento, School of Social Sciences]. https://doi.org/10.15168/11572_277816
38. Coronado Vigueras, R. A. (2015). La reforma tributaria 2014: Un análisis desde las coaliciones discursivas [Tesis Postgrado, Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas]. https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/137806
39. Cross, J. P., Greene, D., Umansky, N., & Calò, S. (2023). Speaking in unison? Explaining the role of agenda-setter constellations in the ECB policy agenda using a network-based approach. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2242891
40. Dalimunthe, S. A., Putri, I. A. P., & Prasojo, A. P. S. (2022). Depicting mangrove’s potential as blue carbon champion in indonesia. In R. Dasgupta, S. Hashimoto, & O. Saito (Eds.), Assessing, mapping and modelling of mangrove ecosystem services in the asia-pacific region (pp. 167–181). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2738-6_9
41. Demler, K., & Thurm, S. (2023). Against all odds? A discourse network analysis of the political debate about the German passenger car toll act. German Politics, 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.02.002
42. Dı́az, A. O., & Gutiérrez, E. C. (2018). Competing actors in the climate change arena in Mexico: A network analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 215, 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.056
43. Drozdzynski, F. A. (2022). The common agricultural policy post 2020: An analysis of the beliefs of selected key stakeholders [Master's Thesis, University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioural, Management; Social Sciences]. https://purl.utwente.nl/essays/92422
44. Duygan, M. (2018). An actor-based analysis of political context for supporting sustainability transitions of socio-technical systems: A study of Swiss waste management [Doctoral Dissertation, ETH Zürich, Department of Environmental Systems Science]. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000336657
45. Duygan, M., Stauffacher, M., & Meylan, G. (2019). A heuristic for conceptualizing and uncovering the determinants of agency in socio-technical transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 33, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.02.002
46. Duygan, M., Stauffacher, M., & Meylan, G. (2018). Discourse coalitions in Swiss waste management: Gridlock or winds of change? Waste Management, 72, 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.006
47. Duygan, M., Stauffacher, M., & Meylan, G. (2021). What constitutes agency? Determinants of actors’ influence on formal institutions in Swiss waste management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120413
48. Eberlein, B., & Rinscheid, A. (2020). Building bridges: How discourse network analysis (DNA) can help CSR research to investigate the “new” political role of corporations. In M. Nagel, P. Kenis, P. Leifeld, & H.-J. Schmedes (Eds.), Politische komplexität, governance von innovationen und policy-netzwerke (pp. 139–146). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-30914-5_16
49. Eder, F. (2015). Der irakkrieg 2003. Innsbruck University Press. https://doi.org/10.15203/2936-75-2
50. Eder, F. (2023). Discourse network analysis. In P. A. Mello & F. Ostermann (Eds.), Routledge handbook of foreign policy analysis methods (pp. 516–535). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003139850-39
51. Eder, F. (2019). Making concurrence-seeking visible: Groupthink, discourse networks, and the 2003 Iraq war. Foreign Policy Analysis, 15(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orx009
52. Eder, F., Libiseller, C., & Schneider, B. (2021). Contesting counter-terrorism: Discourse networks and the politicisation of counter-terrorism in Austria. Journal of International Relations and Development, 24(1), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-020-00187-8
53. Edvra, P. A., & Ahmad, N. (2023). Tipologi jaringan wacana dan komunikator publik dalam berita omicron baru di media online. Jurnal Riset Komunikasi, 6(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.38194/jurkom.v6i1.698
54. Elislah, N. (2023). Discourse network analysis on delaying elections in President Joko Widodo’s era. Jurnal Aspikom, 8(2), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.24329/aspikom.v8i2.1255
55. Eriyanto, & Ali, D. J. (2020). Discourse network of a public issue debate: A study on Covid-19 cases in Indonesia. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 36(3), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2020-3603-13
56. Fergie, G., Leifeld, P., Hawkins, B., & Hilton, S. (2019). Mapping discourse coalitions in the minimum unit pricing for alcohol debate: A discourse network analysis of UK newspaper coverage. Addiction, 114(4), 741–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14514
57. Ferrare, J., Carter-Stone, L., & Galey-Horn, S. (2021). Ideological tensions in education policy networks: An analysis of the policy innovators in education network in the United States. Foro de Educacion, 19(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.14516/fde.819
58. Filippini, R., Mazzocchi, C., & Corsi, S. (2015). Trends in urban food strategies. In C. Tornaghi (Ed.), Re-imagining sustainable food planning, building resourcefulness: Food movements, insurgent planning and heterodox economics: Proceedings of the 8th annual conference AESOP sustainable food planning group (pp. 79–88). Coventry University. https://doi.org/https://pureportal.coventry.ac.uk/en/publications/re-imagining-sustainable-food-planning-building-resourcefulness-f
59. Fisher, D. R., & Leifeld, P. (2019). The polycentricity of climate policy blockage. Climatic Change, 155(4), 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02481-y
60. Fisher, D. R., Leifeld, P., & Iwaki, Y. (2013). Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic Change, 116(3), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0512-7
61. Fisher, D. R., Waggle, J., & Leifeld, P. (2013). Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the US climate change debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 70–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212463360
62. Friis, G. (2020). Populist radical right parties into parliament: Changes in mainstream parties’ political positions in parliamentary debates on immigration and refugees [Master’s thesis, Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities; Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Government]. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-403427
63. Galey-Horn, S., & Ferrare, J. J. (2020). Using policy network analysis to understand ideological convergence and change in educational subsystems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(118). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4508
64. Galey-Horn, S., Reckhow, S., Ferrare, J. J., & Jasny, L. (2020). Building consensus: Idea brokerage in teacher policy networks. American Educational Research Journal, 57(2), 872–905. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219872738
65. Galli Robertson, A. M. (2021). Privileged accounts in the debate over coal-fired power in the United States. Society & Natural Resources, 34(2), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1781989
66. Gallmann, M. R. (2021). Depicting climate change in a vulnerable country: Agenda-setting and a discourse network approach on Philippine broadsheet media [Master's Thesis, University of Bern, Faculty of Science, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research]. https://occrdata.unibe.ch/students/theses/msc/324.pdf
67. Geddes, A., Schmid, N., Schmidt, T. S., & Steffen, B. (2020). The politics of climate finance: Consensus and partisanship in designing green state investment banks in the United Kingdom and Australia. Energy Research & Social Science, 69, 101583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101583
68. Ghinoi, S., De Vita, R., & Silvestri, F. (2023). Local policymakers’ attitudes towards climate change: A multi-method case study. Social Networks, 25, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.09.001
69. Ghinoi, S., Junior, V. J. W., & Piras, S. (2018). Political debates and agricultural policies: Discourse coalitions behind the creation of Brazil’s Pronaf. Land Use Policy, 76, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.039
70. Ghinoi, S., & Omori, M. (2023). Expert knowledge and social innovation: Analysing policy debates in Japan. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2023.2178485
71. Ghinoi, S., & Steiner, B. (2020). The political debate on climate change in Italy: A discourse network analysis. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2577
72. Gielens, E., Roosma, F., & Achterberg, P. (2023). Between left and right: A discourse network analysis of universal basic income on Dutch Twitter. Journal of Social Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279422000976
73. Gkiouzepas, G., & Botetzagias, I. (2017). Climate change coverage in Greek newspapers: 2001–2008. Environmental Communication, 11(4), 490–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1047888
74. Grünwald, L. (2023). Roadblocks of polarization: Mechanisms of cultural resistance to a speed limit on German highways [Master’s thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development]. https://doi.org/20.500.12932/44291
75. Gupta, K., Ripberger, J., Fox, A., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Silva, C. (2022). Discourse network analysis of nuclear narratives. In M. D. Jones, M. K. McBeth, & E. Shanahan (Eds.), Narratives and the policy process: Applications of the narrative policy framework (pp. 13–38). Montana State University Library. https://doi.org/10.15788/npf2
76. Gutiérrez Meave, R. (2022). Framing and decisions: The punctuations of the mexican power generation policy subsystem. In A.-M. Bercu, I. Bilan, & C.-M. Apostoaie (Eds.), European administrative area: Integration and resilience dynamics. Proceedings of the international conference EU-PAIR 2022 (pp. 275–286). Editura Universităii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iai. http://eu-pair.uaic.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/volum_EUPAIR_2022.pdf
77. Gutiérrez Meave, R. (2022). Redes de discurso, coaliciones y decisiones: La política de generación eléctrica en méxico 1994–2018 [PhD thesis, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), Doctorado en Políticas Públicas]. https://doi.org/11651/5321
78. Gutiérrez-Meave, R. (2024). Advocacy coalitions, soft power, and policy change in Mexican electricity policy: A discourse network analysis. Policy & Politics. https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000005
79. Hamanduna, A. O. L., & Widjanarko, P. (2023). Discourse network on the revision of Indonesian information and electronic transaction law. Jurnal Studi Komunikasi, 7(2), 519–538. https://doi.org/10.25139/jsk.v7i2.5496
80. Hanschmann, R. (2019). Stalling the engine? EU climate politics after the “great recession.” Investigating the impact of economic shocks on EU climate policy-making in three case studies [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Potsdam, Faculty of Economics; Social Sciences]. https://doi.org/10.25932/publishup-44044
81. Hanschmann, R. (2017). Polarized business interests. EU climate policy-making during the “great recession.” In D. K. Jesuit & R. A. Williams (Eds.), Public policy, governance and polarization. Making governance work (1st ed., pp. 126–156). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315560342
82. Hasselbalch, J. (2017). The contentious politics of disruptive innovation: Vaping and fracking in the European Union [PhD thesis, University of Warwick, Department of Politics; International Studies; Université Libre de Bruxelles, Département de Sciences Politiques]. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/93146
83. Hasselbalch, J. A. (2019). Framing brain drain: Between solidarity and skills in European labor mobility. Review of International Political Economy, 26(6), 1333–1360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1626755
84. Haunss, S. (2017). (De-)legitimating discourse networks: Smoke without fire? In S. Schneider, H. Schmidtke, S. Haunss, & J. Gronau (Eds.), Capitalism and its legitimacy in times of crisis (pp. 191–220). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53765-8_7
85. Haunss, S., Dietz, M., & Nullmeier, F. (2013). Der Ausstieg aus der Atomenergie: Diskursnetzwerkanalyse als Beitrag zur Erklärung einer radikalen Politikwende. Zeitschrift für Diskursforschung / Journal for Discourse Studies, 1(3), 288–316. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-opus4-996532
86. Haunss, S., & Hollway, J. (2023). Multimodal mechanisms of political discourse dynamics and the case of Germany’s nuclear energy phase-out. Network Science, 11(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2022.31
87. Haunss, S., Kuhn, J., Padó, S., Blessing, A., Blokker, N., Dayanik, E., & Lapesa, G. (2020). Integrating manual and automatic annotation for the creation of discourse network data sets. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 326–339. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2591
88. Haunss, S., Lenke, F., Schmidtke, H., & Schneider, S. (2015). Finanzkrise ohne Legitimationskrise? Kapitalismuskritik in der deutschen Qualitätspresse. In M. Dammayr, D. Grass, & B. Rothmüller (Eds.), Legitimität. Gesellschaftliche, politische und wissenschaftliche Bruchlinien in der Rechtfertigung (pp. 73–94). Transcript. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839431818-004
89. Hayward, B. A., McKay-Brown, L., & Poed, S. (2023). Restrictive practices and the “need” for positive behaviour support (PBS): A critical discourse examination of disability policy beliefs. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 27(1), 170–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/17446295211062383
90. Heiberg, J. (2022). The geography of configurations that work [Doctoral Dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development]. https://doi.org/1874/420471
91. Heiberg, J., Binz, C., & Truffer, B. (2020). The geography of technology legitimation: How multiscalar institutional dynamics matter for path creation in emerging industries. Economic Geography, 96(5), 470–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2020.1842189
92. Heiberg, J., Truffer, B., & Binz, C. (2022). Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector. Research Policy, 51(1), 104363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104363
93. Heinmiller, T. B. (2023). Have advocacy coalitions been difference-making in Canadian policy processes? Evidence from firearms policy processes in the 1970s and 1990s. Canadian Political Science Review, 17(2), 1–17. https://ojs.unbc.ca/index.php/cpsr/article/view/1877
94. Henrichsen, T. (2020). Party competition as interdependent process – assessing the contagion effect of Eurosceptic parties in Italy [PhD thesis, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies Pisa, Joint PhD in Political Science, European Politics; International Relations]. https://doi.org/10.15168/11572_277816
96. Hertwig, M., & Witzak, P. (2022). Hybride Interessenvertretung in der Plattformökonomie. Herausforderungen des “coalition building” bei der Kooperation zwischen IG Metall und YouTubers Union. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 51(2), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-2022-0010
97. Hilton, S., Buckton, C. H., Henrichsen, T., Fergie, G., & Leifeld, P. (2020). Policy congruence and advocacy strategies in the discourse networks of minimum unit pricing for alcohol and the soft drinks industry levy. Addiction, 115(12), 2303–2314. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15068
98. Hodge, E. M., Benko, S. L., & Salloum, S. J. (2020). Tracing states’ messages about common core instruction: An analysis of English/language arts and close reading resources. Teachers College Record, 122(3), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200303
99. Holma, K. (2021). Suomesta yritysvastuun edelläkävijä?: Diskurssiverkostoanalyysi suomalaisesta yritysvastuukeskustelusta [Master's Thesis, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Social Sciences]. https://doi.org/10138/329841
100. Hopkins, V. (2020). Lobbying for democracy: Interest groups in Canada’s parliamentary system [PhD thesis, Simon Fraser University, Department of Political Science]. https://summit.sfu.ca/item/20306
101. Horning, D. G. (2017). Understanding structure and character in rural water governance networks [PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, College of Graduate Studies]. https://doi.org/2429/60346
102. Hornung, J., Schröder, I., & Bandelow, N. C. (2023). Programmatisches Handeln in der deutschen Verkehrspolitik. Gemeinsame Identitäten von Akteuren im Umfeld des Deutschlandtakts. In D. Sack, H. Straßheim, & K. Zimmermann (Eds.), Renaissance der Verkehrspolitik. Politik- und mobilitätswissenschaftliche Perspektiven (pp. 135–160). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38832-4_6
103. Howe, A. C. (2022). Network processes related to political discourse and policy positions: The case of climate change policy networks in Canada [PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Department of Sociology]. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0407335
104. Howe, A. C., Stoddart, M. C. J., & Tindall, D. B. (2020). Media coverage and perceived policy influence of environmental actors: Good strategy or pyrrhic victory? Politics and Governance, 8(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2595
105. Hullmann, C. (2023). Case study on the German discourse of industry decarbonization [Master's Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen School of Management]. https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/15079
106. Hurka, S., & Nebel, K. (2013). Framing and policy change after shooting rampages: A comparative analysis of discourse networks. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 390–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.761508
107. Imbert, I. (2017). An inquiry into the material and ideational dimensions of policymaking: A case study of fuel poverty in Germany [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Konstanz, Department of Politics; Public Administration]. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-0-425111
108. Jalasmäki, H. (2020). Taistelu asiantuntijuudesta: Uskomukset ja kannatuskoalitiot varhaiskasvatuksen diskurssiverkostossa [Master's Thesis, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Social Sciences]. https://doi.org/10138/317611
109. Janning, F., Leifeld, P., Malang, T., & Schneider, V. (2009). Diskursnetzwerkanalyse. Überlegungen zur Theoriebildung und Methodik. In V. Schneider, F. Janning, P. Leifeld, & T. Malang (Eds.), Politiknetzwerke. Modelle, Anwendungen und Visualisierungen (pp. 59–92). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91883-9_3
110. Jeong, M. (2017). National renewable energy policy in a global world [PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, School of Public Policy]. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/national-renewable-energy-policy-global-world/docview/1927720461/se-2
111. Jin, Y., Schaub, S., Tosun, J., & Wesseler, J. (2022). Does China have a public debate on genetically modified organisms? A discourse network analysis of public debate on Weibo. Public Understanding of Science, 31(6), 732–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211070150
112. Joshi, B., & Swarnakar, P. (2023). How fair is our air? The injustice of procedure, distribution, and recognition within the discourse of air pollution in Delhi, India. Environmental Sociology, 9(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2022.2151398
113. Joshi, B., & Swarnakar, P. (2021). Staying away, staying alive: Exploring risk and stigma of COVID-19 in the context of beliefs, actors and hierarchies in India. Current Sociology, 69(4), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392121990023
114. Kammerer, M. (2017). Climate politics at the intersection between international dynamics and national decision-making: A policy network approach [Doctoral Thesis, University of Zurich, Faculty of Arts; Social Sciences]. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-152954
115. Kammerer, M., Crameri, F., & Ingold, K. (2019). Das Klima und die EU: Eine Diskursperspektive auf die deutsche und schweizerische Klimapolitik. In R. Careja, P. Emmenegger, & N. Giger (Eds.), The european social model under pressure. Liber amicorum in honour of klaus armingeon (pp. 599–623). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27043-8_34
116. Kammerer, M., & Ingold, K. (2023). Actors and issues in climate change policy: The maturation of a policy discourse in the national and international context. Social Networks, 75, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.08.005
117. Kasih, P. C. (2023). Pertarungan wacana Kereta Cepat Jakarta-Bandung dalam media online. Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi UHO: Jurnal Penelitian Kajian Ilmu Komunikasi Dan Informasi, 8(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.52423/jikuho.v8i1.15
118. Keller, S. (2023). Analysis of the media discourse about meat and meat substitutes in U.S. Media between 2016 and 2021 [Master's Thesis, University of Bern, Faculty of Science, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research]. https://occrdata.unibe.ch/students/theses/msc/394.pdf
119. Kenis, P., & Schneider, V. (2019). Analyzing policy-making II: Policy network analysis. In H. Van den Bulck, M. Puppis, K. Donders, & L. Van Audenhove (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of methods for media policy research (pp. 471–491). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_27
120. Khatami, M. I. (2022). Discourse network analysis (DNA): Aktivisme digital dalam perdebatan isu “presiden tiga periode” di Twitter. Jurnal Audience: Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, 5(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.33633/ja.v5i1.5484
121. Khubbeeva, P. (2022). Vom Bitcoin zur Blockchain? Distributed-Ledger-Technologien im politischen Diskurs. Leitbilder, Ideen und Diskursnetzwerke im deutschen Bundestag der 19. Legislaturperiode [Master's Thesis, FU Berlin, Otto-Suhr-Institut für Politikwissenschaft]. https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-34225
122. Koďousková, H., & Lehotskỳ, L. (2021). Energy poverty in the Czech Republic: Individual responsibility or structural issue? Energy Research & Social Science, 72, 101877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101877
123. Koebele, E. A., Bultema, S., & Weible, C. (2020). Modeling environmental governance in the Lake Tahoe basin: A multiplex network approach. In M. Fischer & K. Ingold (Eds.), Networks in water governance (pp. 173–202). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46769-2_7
124. Kooistra, M. N. (2022). Space security and orbital sustainability. An institutional logics approach [Master's Thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development]. https://doi.org/20.500.12932/42903
125. Koop-Monteiro, Y., Stoddart, M. C. J., & Tindall, D. B. (2023). Animals and climate change: A visual and discourse network analysis of Instagram posts. Environmental Sociology, 9(4), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2023.2216371
126. Kukkonen, A., Stoddart, M. C. J., & Ylä-Anttila, T. (2021). Actors and justifications in media debates on Arctic climate change in Finland and Canada: A network approach. Acta Sociologica, 64(1), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699319890902
127. Kukkonen, A. (2018). Discourse networks and justifications of climate change policy: News media debates in Canada, the United States, Finland, France, Brazil and India [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Social Sciences]. https://doi.org/10138/257508
128. Kukkonen, A., & Malkamäki, A. (2023). A cultural approach to politicization of science: How the forestry coalition challenged the scientific consensus in the Finnish news media debate on increased logging. Society & Natural Resources. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2023.2259326
129. Kukkonen, A., & Ylä-Anttila, T. (2020). The science–policy interface as a discourse network: Finland’s climate change policy 2002–2015. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 200. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2603
130. Kukkonen, A., Ylä-Anttila, T., & Broadbent, J. (2017). Advocacy coalitions, beliefs and climate change policy in the United States. Public Administration, 95(3), 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12321
131. Kukkonen, A., Ylä-Anttila, T., Swarnakar, P., Broadbent, J., Lahsen, M., & Stoddart, M. C. J. (2018). International organizations, advocacy coalitions, and domestication of global norms: Debates on climate change in Canada, the US, Brazil, and India. Environmental Science & Policy, 81, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.008
132. Lapesa, G., Blessing, A., Blokker, N., Dayanık, E., Haunss, S., Kuhn, J., & Padó, S. (2020). DEbateNet-mig15: Tracing the 2015 immigration debate in Germany over time. Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 919–927. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.115
133. Laurer, M., & Seidl, T. (2021). Regulating the European data-driven economy: A case study on the general data protection regulation. Policy & Internet, 13(2), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.246
134. Leifeld, P. (2009). Die Untersuchung von Diskursnetzwerken mit dem Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA). In V. Schneider, F. Janning, P. Leifeld, & T. Malang (Eds.), Politiknetzwerke. Modelle, Anwendungen und Visualisierungen (pp. 391–404). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91883-9
135. Leifeld, P. (2013). Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: A discourse network analysis of German pension politics. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12007
136. Leifeld, P. (2014). Polarization of coalitions in an agent-based model of political discourse. Computational Social Networks, 1(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40649-014-0007-y
137. Leifeld, P. (2016). Policy debates as dynamic networks: German pension politics and privatization discourse. Campus. http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/P/bo24978289.html
138. Leifeld, P. (2017). Discourse network analysis: Policy debates as dynamic networks. In J. N. Victor, A. H. Montgomery, & M. N. Lubell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political networks (pp. 301–325). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190228217.013.25
139. Leifeld, P. (2020). Policy debates and discourse network analysis: A research agenda. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 180–183. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.3249
140. Leifeld, P., & Brandenberger, L. (2019). Endogenous coalition formation in policy debates. arXiv Preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1904.05327
141. Leifeld, P., & Haunss, S. (2012). Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 51(3), 382–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02003.x
142. Leifeld, P., Henrichsen, T., Buckton, C., Fergie, G., & Hilton, S. (2021). Belief system alignment and cross-sectoral advocacy efforts in policy debates. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1945131
143. Leipold, A. C. (2016). Ökonomische Ungleichheit und der Einfluss von Diskurskoalitionen auf Vermögensbesteuerung in Deutschland, 1995–2015: Eine Diskursnetzwerkanalyse von Policy-Wandel in der Steuerpolitik [Master's Thesis, FernUniversität Hagen, Fakultät für Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften, Institut für Politikwissenschaft]. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:708-dh324
144. Lemke, N., Trein, P., & Varone, F. (2023). Agenda-setting in nascent policy subsystems: Issue and instrument priorities across venues. 56, 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-023-09514-5
145. Lestrelin, G., Augusseau, X., David, D., Bourgoin, J., Lagabrielle, E., Seen, D. L., & Degenne, P. (2017). Collaborative landscape research in Reunion Island: Using spatial modelling and simulation to support territorial foresight and urban planning. Applied Geography, 78, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.11.003
146. Li, Z., Tan, X., & Liu, B. (2023). Policy changes in china’s family planning: Perspectives of advocacy coalitions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), 5204. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20065204
147. Lintner, T., Diviák, T., Nekardová, B., Lehotskỳ, L., & Vašečka, M. (2023). Slovak MPs’ response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in light of conspiracy theories and the polarization of political discourse. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02276-8
148. Ličková, V. (2023). Coal framing in the Indian political discourse [Master's Thesis, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies]. https://is.muni.cz/th/f0wxf/
149. Lindberg, M. B., & Kammermann, L. (2021). Advocacy coalitions in the acceleration phase of the European energy transition. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 40, 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.07.006
150. Lockhart, C. (2014). Discourse network analysis of the Northern Gateway Pipeline project: Assessing environmental governance in the joint review panel process [Master's Thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Environmental Governance Section]. https://doi.org/20.500.12932/17790
151. Malkamäki, A., Ylä-Anttila, T., Brockhaus, M., Toppinen, A., & Wagner, P. M. (2021). Unity in diversity? When advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs grow trees in South Africa. Land Use Policy, 102, 105283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105283
152. Malkamäki, A. (2019). On the human impacts and governance of large-scale tree plantations [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Agriculture; Forestry]. https://doi.org/10138/306940
153. Malkamäki, A., Chen, T. H. Y., Gronow, A., Kivelä, M., Vesa, J., & Ylä-Anttila, T. (2023). Complex coalitions: Political alliances across relational contexts. arXiv:2308.14422. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.14422
154. Malkamäki, A., Wagner, P. M., Brockhaus, M., Toppinen, A., & Ylä-Anttila, T. (2021). On the acoustics of policy learning: Can co-participation in policy forums break up echo chambers? Policy Studies Journal, 49(2), 431–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12378
155. Mardiah, A. N. R. (2018). Interface between disaster and development: Local economic revival through collaborative post-disaster recovery governance and network in Indonesia [PhD thesis, University of Leeds, School of Geography]. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/21580/
156. Mardiah, A. N., Lovett, J. C., & Evanty, N. (2017). Toward integrated and inclusive disaster risk reduction in Indonesia: Review of regulatory frameworks and institutional networks. In R. Djalante, M. Garschagen, F. Thomalla, & R. Shaw (Eds.), Disaster risk reduction in Indonesia (pp. 57–84). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54466-3_3
157. Marino, F., Crowley, S. L., Williams Foley, N. A., McDonald, R. A., & Hodgson, D. J. (2023). Stakeholder discourse coalitions and polarisation in the hen harrier conservation debate in news media. People and Nature, 5(2), 668–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10437
158. Mariño, D., & Rozenblat, C. (2022). Stakeholders’ power in the networking structuration processes of the urban resilience concept in Habitat III agenda (2012–2016). Geography and Sustainability, 3(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2022.02.001
159. Markard, J., Rinscheid, A., & Widdel, L. (2021). Analyzing transitions through the lens of discourse networks: Coal phase-out in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 40, 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.08.001
160. Mayer, C. D. (2022). New west tension and threatened species protection: The western Joshua tree conservation debate in the Morongo Basin, california [Master's Thesis, California State University, Long Beach, Department of Geography]. https://www.proquest.com/openview/1083c5aaab0975222105407490f130dd/1
161. McDonald, E. (2019). Energy security in the age of interconnection: Cyber-threat framing in British political discourse [Master's Thesis, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies]. https://is.muni.cz/th/gqxcz/
162. Mijailoff, J. D., & Burns, S. L. (2023). Fixing the meaning of floating signifier: Discourses and network analysis in the bioeconomy policy processes in Argentina and Uruguay. Forest Policy and Economics, 154, 103039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103039
163. Miles, A. (2020). Changes in social networks and narratives associated with Lake Erie water quality management after the 2014 Toledo water crisis [Master's Thesis, The Ohio State University, Graduate Program in Environment; Natural Resources]. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1593600584732076
164. Minin, N. (2020). Post-Fukushima discourse regarding nuclear energy in the European Union and its implications [Doctoral Dissertation, Masaryk University, Department of International Relations; European Studies]. https://is.muni.cz/th/qtp3a/
165. Miörner, J., Heiberg, J., & Binz, C. (2022). How global regimes diffuse in space – explaining a missed transition in San Diego’s water sector. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 44, 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.05.005
166. Mišić, M., & Obydenkova, A. (2021). Environmental conflict, renewable energy, or both? Public opinion on small hydropower plants in Serbia. Post-Communist Economies, 34(5), 684–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1943928
167. Möck, M., Vogeler, C. S., Bandelow, N. C., & Hornung, J. (2023). Relational coupling of multiple streams: The case of COVID-19 infections in German abattoirs. Policy Studies Journal, 51(2), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12459
168. Morton, S. E., Muchiri, J., & Swiss, L. (2020). Which feminism(s)? For whom? Intersectionality in Canada’s feminist international assistance policy. International Journal, 75(3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702020953420
169. Muller, A. (2014). Het meten van discourscoalities met discoursnetwerkanalyse: Naar een formele analyse van het politieke vertoog. Res Publica, 56(3), 337–364. https://openjournals.ugent.be/rp/article/id/74454/
170. Muller, A. (2015). Using discourse network analysis to measure discourse coalitions: Towards a formal analysis of political discourse. World Political Science, 11(2), 377–404. https://doi.org/10.1515/wps-2015-0009
171. Murti, D. C. W., & Nur Ratriyana, I. (2022). The playground of big tobacco? Discourse network analysis of the cigarette advertising debate and policy in Indonesia. Journal of Communication Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/01968599211072438
172. Nagel, M. (2015). Polarisierung im politischen Diskurs: Eine Netzwerkanalyse zum Konflikt um “Stuttgart 21”. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11225-7
173. Nagel, M. (2023). Allianzen und Strategien für saubere Luft in den Städten. In J. Betz, H.-J. Bieling, A. Futterer, M. Möhring-Hesse, & M. Nagel (Eds.), Konflikte um Infrastrukturen: Öffentliche Debatten und politische Konzepte (pp. 153–177). transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839467428
174. Nagel, M. (2023). Divergierende Interessen: Der Kampf um saubere Luft in den Städten. In J. Betz, H.-J. Bieling, A. Futterer, M. Möhring-Hesse, & M. Nagel (Eds.), Konflikte um Infrastrukturen: Öffentliche Debatten und politische Konzepte (pp. 77–98). transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839467428
175. Nagel, M., & Bravo-Laguna, C. (2022). Analyzing multi-level governance dynamics from a discourse network perspective: The debate over air pollution regulation in Germany. Environmental Sciences Europe, 34(62), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00640-0
176. Nagel, M., & Satoh, K. (2019). Protesting iconic megaprojects. A discourse network analysis of the evolution of the conflict over Stuttgart 21. Urban Studies, 56(8), 1681–1700. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018775903
177. Nagel, M., & Schäfer, M. (2023). Powerful stories of local climate action: Comparing the evolution of narratives using the “narrative rate” index. Review of Policy Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12545
178. Nägler, R. (2019). Steuermannskunst im Hochschulmanagement. Die Wirkungskraft von Ideen und Diskursen auf die Universität. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28406-0
179. Nam, A., & Weible, C. M. (2023). Examining experts’ discourse in South Korea’s nuclear power policy making: An advocacy coalition framework approach to policy knowledge. Politics & Policy, 51(2), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12522
180. Nam, A., Weible, C. M., & Park, K. (2022). Polarization and frames of advocacy coalitions in South Korea’s nuclear energy policy. Review of Policy Research, 39(4), 387–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12466
181. Nebel, K. (2016). Religion im moralpolitischen diskurs. Position und Einfluss der Kirchen in der deutschen Debatte um die embryonale Stammzellenforschung. In A. Liedhegener & G. Pickel (Eds.), Religionspolitik und Politik der Religionen in Deutschland (pp. 109–129). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11821-1_5
182. Nolte, I. M., Polzer, T., & Seiwald, J. (2021). Gender budgeting in emerging economies – a systematic literature review and research agenda. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 11(5), 799–820. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-03-2020-0047
183. Ocelík, P. (2015). Analỳza diskursivních sítí: Případ lokální opozice vůči hlubinnému úložišti radioaktivních odpadů v České republice [PhD thesis, Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta sociálních studií]. https://is.muni.cz/th/h7yku/
184. Ocelı́k, P. (2022). Climate change scepticism in front-page Czech newspaper coverage: A one man show. In D. Tindall, M. C. J. Stoddart, & R. E. Dunlap (Eds.), Handbook of anti-environmentalism (pp. 84–106). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839100222.00013
185. Ohlendorf, N. (2022). The political economy of energy transitions [Doctoral Thesis, Technical University of Berlin, Fakultät VI - Planen Bauen Umwelt, FG Ökonomie des Klimawandels]. https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-16399
186. Ohlendorf, N., Löhr, M., & Markard, J. (2023). Actors in multi-sector transitions – discourse analysis on hydrogen in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 47, 100692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100692
187. Ohno, T. (2022). Advocacy coalition framework in environmental governance studies: Explaining major policy change for a large dam removal in Japan. International Review of Public Policy, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.2362
188. Oliveira, H. C., & Sanches Filho, A. (2023). Coalizões de defesa na política de transporte marítimo de cargas no Brasil: Privatização, descentralização e abertura para o capital estrangeiro. Caderno CRH – Revista de Ciências Sociais Do Centro de Estudos Pesquisas e Humanidades Da Universidade Federal Da Bahia, 36(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.9771/ccrh.v36i0.55996
189. Osei-Kojo, A. (2021). An advocacy coalition framework analysis of oil and gas governance in Ghana [PhD thesis, University of Colorado Denver, School of Public Affairs]. https://digital.auraria.edu/work/ns/3584b996-49b1-4a8f-a2c3-57b940b73cf3
190. Osei-Kojo, A. (2023). Analysing the stability of advocacy coalitions and policy frames in Ghana’s oil and gas governance. Policy & Politics, 51(1), 71--90. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557322X16651632139992
191. Osička, J., Lehotskỳ, L., Zapletalová, V., Černoch, F., & Dančák, B. (2018). Natural gas market integration in the Visegrad 4 region: An example to follow or to avoid? Energy Policy, 112, 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.018
192. Padó, S., Blessing, A., Blokker, N., Dayanık, E., Haunss, S., & Kuhn, J. (2019). Who sides with whom? Towards computational construction of discourse networks for political debates. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2841–2847. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1273
193. Palladino, N. (2021). The role of epistemic communities in the “constitutionalization” of internet governance: The example of the European Commission high-level expert group on artificial intelligence. Telecommunications Policy, 45(6), 102149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102149
194. Pham-Truffert, M., Metz, F., Fischer, M., Rueff, H., & Messerli, P. (2020). Interactions among sustainable development goals: Knowledge for identifying multipliers and virtuous cycles. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1236–1250. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2073
195. Pic, P. (2022). Une sécurité arctique? Analyse des échelles de la sécurité dans une région à géométrie variable [PhD thesis, Université Laval, Qu’ebec, Graduate School of International Studies]. https://doi.org/20.500.11794/73444
196. Piereder, J., Janzwood, S., & Homer-Dixon, T. (2023). Ideology and climate change. A complex reflexive systems approach to energy transition discourse networks. In J. Leader Maynard & M. L. Haas (Eds.), The routledge handbook of ideology and international relations (pp. 267–296). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003026754-19
197. Pop, I., Gielens, E., & Kottmann, H. (2023). Microdosing psychedelics: The segregation of spiritual and scientific narratives within the r/microdosing online community. Journal of Psychedelic Studies, 7(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2023.00014
198. Pospı́šilová, T. (2022). Liberty, equality, hydrogen? Discourse network analysis of French hydrogen politics [Master's Thesis, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies]. https://is.muni.cz/th/azy84/
199. Pratama, B. I., & Illahi Ulfa, A. A. (2017). Discourse networking analysis as alternative research method in communication science studies – discourse networking analysis sebagai metode penelitian alternatif dalam kajian ilmu komunikasi. Jurnal Penelitian Komunikasi Dan Opini Publik, 21(2), 126–136. https://www.neliti.com/publications/223278/
200. Pratiwi, M., Murtiningsih, B. S. E., & Juliadi, R. (2023). Discourse network analysis pada stakeholder dan integrated value creation dalam CSR Bank Mandiri. Jurnal Komunikasi Profesional, 7(2), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.25139/jkp.v7i2.5998
201. Putri, R. A., Alemmario, R., Melinda, G., Audwina, A. H., Espressivo, A., Herlinda, O., Meilissa, Y., & Saminarsih, D. S. (2023). The advocacy coalition of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in Indonesia. BMJ Global Health, 8(Suppl 8), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012052
202. Rantala, S., & Di Gregorio, M. (2014). Multistakeholder environmental governance in action: REDD+ discourse coalitions in Tanzania. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06536-190266
203. Reckhow, S., & Tompkins-Stange, M. (2018). Financing the education policy discourse: Philanthropic funders as entrepreneurs in policy networks. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 7(3), 258–288. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-018-0043-3
204. Reckhow, S., Tompkins-Stange, M., & Galey-Horn, S. (2021). How the political economy of knowledge production shapes education policy: The case of teacher evaluation in federal policy discourse. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(3), 472–494. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211003906
205. Rennkamp, B. (2019). Power, coalitions and institutional change in South African climate policy. Climate Policy, 19(6), 756–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1591936
206. Rennkamp, B., Haunss, S., Wongsa, K., Ortega, A., & Casamadrid, E. (2017). Competing coalitions: The politics of renewable energy and fossil fuels in Mexico, South Africa and Thailand. Energy Research & Social Science, 34, 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.07.012
207. Rinscheid, A. (2018). Behavioral and institutionalist perspectives on preference formation in a contested political context: The case of divesting from nuclear power [Doctoral Dissertation, University of St. Gallen, School of Management, Economics, Law, Social Sciences; International Affairs]. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:ch:bel-2262961
208. Rinscheid, A. (2015). Crisis, policy discourse, and major policy change: Exploring the role of subsystem polarization in nuclear energy policymaking. European Policy Analysis, 1(2), 34–70. https://doi.org/10.18278/epa.1.2.3
209. Rinscheid, A. (2020). Business power in noisy politics: An exploration based on discourse network analysis and survey data. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2580
210. Rinscheid, A., Eberlein, B., Emmenegger, P., & Schneider, V. (2020). Why do junctures become critical? Political discourse, agency, and joint belief shifts in comparative perspective. Regulation & Governance, 14(4), 653–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12238
211. Rone, J. (2018). “Don’t worry, we are from the internet.” The diffusion of protest against the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement in the age of austerity [PhD thesis, European University Institute, Department of Political; Social Sciences]. https://doi.org/10.2870/722302
212. Rone, J. (2023). Instrumentalising sovereignty claims in British pro- and anti-Brexit mobilisations. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 25(3), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481221089136
213. Rosalia, F. (2023). Discourse battle on Borobudur Temple tariff increase policy in discourse analysis network. Jurnal Komunikasi, 17(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.21107/ilkom.v17i1.18867
214. Rychlik, J., Hornung, J., & Bandelow, N. C. (2021). Come together, right now: Storylines and social identities in coalition building in a local policy subsystem. Politics & Policy, 49(5), 1216–1247. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12431
215. Saputro, N. P., Pearly, C., Hidayat, E., Charoline, E., & Wulan, R. R. (2023). Bias media mengenai pemberitaan batalnya Indonesia menjadi tuan rumah piala dunia u-20 2023 di media online tirto.id dan tempo.co. Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan, 9(23), 547–556. https://jurnal.peneliti.net/index.php/JIWP/article/view/5655
216. Schaub, S. (2021). The politics of water protection [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Heidelberg, Faculty of Economics; Social Studies, Institute of Political Science]. https://doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00030285
217. Schaub, S. (2021). Public contestation over agricultural pollution: A discourse network analysis on narrative strategies in the policy process. Policy Sciences, 54(4), 783–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09439-x
218. Schaub, S., & Braunbeck, T. (2020). Transition towards sustainable pharmacy? The influence of public debates on policy responses to pharmaceutical contaminants in water. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-00423-5
219. Schaub, S., & Metz, F. A. (2020). Comparing discourse and policy network approaches: Evidence from water policy on micropollutants. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2597
220. Schmid, N. (2020). The politics of technological change – case studies from the energy sector [Doctoral Thesis, ETH Zürich, Department of Humanities, Social; Political Sciences, Energy; Technology Policy Group]. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000447993
221. Schmid, N., Sewerin, S., & Schmidt, T. S. (2020). Explaining advocacy coalition change with policy feedback. Policy Studies Journal, 48(4), 1109–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12365
222. Schmidt, S. (2017). Terrorist attacks as “policy windows”: A discourse network analysis of German parliamentary debates [Diploma Thesis, Charles University, Department of Security Studies]. https://doi.org/20.500.11956/125548
223. Schmidt, T. S., Schmid, N., & Sewerin, S. (2019). Policy goals, partisanship and paradigmatic change in energy policy – analyzing parliamentary discourse in Germany over 30 years. Climate Policy, 19(6), 771–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1594667
224. Schmitz, L. (2018). From coherence to coheritization. Explaining the rise of policy coherence in EU external policy [Master's Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen]. http://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/5669
225. Schmitz, L., & Eimer, T. R. (2020). From coherence to coheritization: Explaining the rise of policy coherence in EU external policy. Globalizations, 17(4), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1676103
226. Schmitz, L., & Seidl, T. (2022). As open as possible, as autonomous as necessary: Understanding the rise of open strategic autonomy in EU trade policy. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 61(3), 834–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13428
227. Schneider, N., & Rinscheid, A. (2024). The (de-)construction of technology legitimacy: Contending storylines surrounding wind energy in Austria and Switzerland. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 198, 122929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122929
228. Schneider, V., & Ollmann, J. K. (2013). Punctuations and displacements in policy discourse: The climate change issue in Germany 2007–2010. In S. Silvern & S. Young (Eds.), Environmental change and sustainability (pp. 157–184). Intech. https://doi.org/10.5772/54302
229. Schulz, C. (2020). Forest conservation through markets? A discourse network analysis of the debate on funding mechanisms for REDD+ in Brazil. Environmental Communication, 14(2), 202–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1631869
230. Sconfienza, U., & Durand, F. (2023). Discourse network analysis of Twitter and newspapers: Lessons learned from the nuclear debate in the 2022 French presidential campaign. French Politics, 21(2), 195–221. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-023-00215-2
231. Seidl, T. (2021). Ideas, politics, and technological change: Essays on the comparative political economy of digital capitalism [PhD thesis, European University Institute, Department of Political; Social Sciences]. https://doi.org/10.2870/836646
232. Seidl, T. (2022). The politics of platform capitalism: A case study on the regulation of Uber in New York. Regulation & Governance, 16(2), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12353
233. Selle, L. (2017). What multi-level parliamentary system? Parliamentary discourses in EU budgetary negotiations (MFF 2014–2020). In S. Becker, M. W. Bauer, & A. De Feo (Eds.), The new politics of the European Union budget (pp. 149–172). Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845278032-149
234. Ševčík, M. (2021). Analỳza vyřazenı́ jaderné energie z energetického mixu Německa po roce 2011 [Diploma Thesis, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies]. https://is.muni.cz/th/ul2is/
235. Shukla, R., & Swarnakar, P. (2022). Energy justice in post-Paris India: Unpacking consensus and conflict through storylines and discourse coalitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 91, 102687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102687
236. Shukla, R., & Swarnakar, P. (2022). Energy transition and dialectics: Tracing discursive resistance to coal through discourse coalition in India. Globalizations. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2086735
237. Siagian, T. H. (2020). Mencari kelompok berisiko tinggi terinfeksi virus corona dengan discourse network analysis. Jurnal Kebijakan Kesehatan Indonesia: JKKI, 9(2), 98–106. https://journal.ugm.ac.id/jkki/article/view/55475/27989
238. Sick, H. (2023). From rhetoric to regulation: Inferring lobbying influence on EU efforts to regulate CO2 emissions of cars using network analysis. Interest Groups & Advocacy. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-023-00195-2
239. Silalahi, E. (2023). Analisis jaringan wacana pada pembentukan UUTPKS di media daring. Jurnal Riset Komunikasi (JURKOM), 6(2), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.38194/jurkom.v6i2.812
240. Sofura, A. M. (2023). Discourse network analysis: Studi kasus pada kebijakan kenaikan harga Bahan Bakar Minyak (BBM) pertamina. Kommunikatif, 12(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.33508/jk.v12i1.4526
241. Sohn, C. (2023). The impact of rebordering on cross-border cooperation actors’ discourses in the Öresund region. A semantic network approach. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography. https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2023.2266436
242. Soraya, R. (2023). Jaringan wacana isu publik: Studi DNA pada isu ASN terpapar radikalisme. Jurnal Interaksi: Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, 7(2), 130–145. https://doi.org/10.30596/ji.v7i2.13161
243. Stancioff, C. E. (2016). Locality and landscape change: Cultural values and social-ecological resiliency in the Kalinago territory. In T. Collins, G. Kindermann, C. Newman, & N. Cronin (Eds.), Landscape values: Place and praxis. Conference, galway, 29th june–2nd july, 2016 (pp. 335–343). NUI Galway, Centre for Landscape Studies. https://doi.org/10379/7340
244. Starke, J. (2016). Generating policy change in situations of equilibrium: Shifting discourse networks in the case of wild circus animals in Germany [Master's Thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Environmental Governance Section]. https://doi.org/20.500.12932/25449
245. Starke, J. R., Metze, T. A. P., Candel, J. J. L., Dewulf, A. R. P. J., & Termeer, K. J. A. M. (2023). “Green future” versus “planetary boundaries”? Evolving online discourse coalitions in European bioeconomy conflicts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 425, 139058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139058
246. Steinfeld, N. (2016). The F-campaign: A discourse network analysis of party leaders’ campaign statements on Facebook. Israel Affairs, 22(3–4), 743–759. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537121.2016.1174385
247. St-Jacques, B. (2019). Us and them. Mapping discourse coalitions in the EU copyright directive debate [Master's Thesis, Hertie School of Governance, Master of Public Policy]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362156055_Us_and_them_-_Mapping_discourse_coalitions_in_the_EU_Copyright_Directive_debate
248. Stoddart, M. C. J., Mattoni, A., & McLevey, J. (2020). Industrial development and eco-tourisms. Can oil extraction and nature conservation co-exist? Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55944-1
249. Stoddart, M. C. J., McCurdy, P., Slawinski, N., & Collins, C. G. (2020). Envisioning energy futures in the North Atlantic oil industry: Avoidance, persistence, and transformation as responses to climate change. Energy Research & Social Science, 69, 101662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101662
250. Stoddart, M. C. J., & Nezhadhossein, E. (2016). Is nature-oriented tourism a pro-environmental practice? Examining tourism–environmentalism alignments through discourse networks and intersectoral relationships. The Sociological Quarterly, 57(3), 544–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/tsq.12148
251. Stoddart, M. C. J., Ramos, H., Foster, K., & Ylä-Anttila, T. (2023). Competing crises? Media coverage and framing of climate change during the COVID-19 pandemic. Environmental Communication, 17(3), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1969978
252. Stoddart, M. C. J., & Smith, J. (2016). The endangered arctic, the arctic as resource frontier: Canadian news media narratives of climate change and the north. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 53(3), 316–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12111
253. Stoddart, M. C. J., & Tindall, D. B. (2015). Canadian news media and the cultural dynamics of multilevel climate governance. Environmental Politics, 24(3), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1008249
254. Stoddart, M. C. J., Tindall, D. B., Smith, J., & Haluza-Delay, R. (2017). Media access and political efficacy in the eco-politics of climate change: Canadian national news and mediated policy networks. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275731
255. Stoddart, M. C. J., & Yang, Y. (2022). What are the roles of regional and local climate governance discourse and actors? Mediated climate change policy networks in Atlantic Canada. Review of Policy Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12510
256. Sumirat, P. A., & Eriyanto, E. (2023). Koalisi wacana dalam debat pemekaran Papua: Analisis jaringan wacana debat pemekaran tiga provinsi Baru di Papua. Jurnal Riset Komunikasi (JURKOM), 6(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.38194/jurkom.v6i2.739
257. Swacha, P., Karaczun, Z. M., & Murawska, D. (2022). The Europeanization of Polish climate policy. Ekonomia i Środowisko – Economics and Environment, 83(4), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2022.83.4.482
258. Swarnakar, P., Shukla, R., & Broadbent, J. (2022). Beliefs and networks: Mapping the Indian climate policy discourse surrounding the Paris climate change conference in 2015. Environmental Communication, 16(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1973528
259. Swedenmark, S. Ö. (2018). “Vi ska sträcka oss lite längre än vi behöver.” En fallstudie om diskursen kring mellanorganisatorisk samverkan inom Stockholmsregionen [Magisteruppsats i statsvetenskap, Mittuniversitetet]. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1239608/FULLTEXT01.pdf
260. Swinkels, E. M. (2021). The role of EU leaders and ideas in managing the Eurozone crisis: Navigating uncharted territory [PhD thesis, Utrecht University]. https://doi.org/10.33540/563
261. Swinkels, M., & Esch, F. van. (2022). Deciding upon the banking union: How a joint belief shift instigated deep institutional change in Eurozone governance. European Policy Analysis, 8(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1137
262. Syafrudin, M., Sarwono, Hakim, A., & Solimun. (2023). Examine the elements that impact food security. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Conference on Business and Public Administration (AICoBPA 2022), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-090-9_45
263. Taranger, K. K. (2020). The institutionalisation of climate justice in the global governance architecture [Master's Thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Environmental Governance Section]. https://doi.org/20.500.12932/37064
264. Tobin, P., Schmidt, N. M., Tosun, J., & Burns, C. (2018). Mapping states’ Paris climate pledges: Analysing targets and groups at COP 21. Global Environmental Change, 48, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.002
265. Tolstukha, E. (2022). Stalemate in the democratic reform debate of the European Union? A dynamic discourse network analysis of actors and their commitment to reform options [PhD thesis, University of Glasgow, School of Social; Political Sciences]. https://doi.org/10.5525/gla.thesis.83036
266. Tosun, J., & Lang, A. (2016). The politics of hydraulic fracturing in Germany: Party competition at different levels of government. In C. M. Weible, T. Heikkila, K. Ingold, & M. Fischer (Eds.), Policy debates on hydraulic fracturing. Comparing coalition politics in north america and europe (pp. 177–200). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59574-4_7
267. Tosun, J., & Schaub, S. (2017). Mobilization in the European public sphere: The struggle over genetically modified organisms. Review of Policy Research, 34(3), 310–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12235
268. Tribulová, Z. (2019). Postoj českej republiky k energetickej tranzícii v kontexte energiewende –- analýza politického diskurzu [Master's Thesis, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies]. https://is.muni.cz/th/f7wcd/
269. Tuinenburg, J. (2019). The effect of discourse networks on the leading support schemes for renewable electricity [Master's Thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Sustainable Development, Earth System Governance]. https://doi.org/20.500.12932/35280
270. Umansky Casapa, N. (2022). Securitization and social media networks: Who tweets security? [Doctoral Thesis, University College Dublin, School of Politics; International Relations]. https://doi.org/10197/13289
271. Vanková, L. (2019). Ťažba hnedého uhlia na hornej nitre: Analỳza diskurzívnych sietí [Master's Thesis, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies]. https://is.muni.cz/th/zr7zl/
272. Vaughan, M. (2020). Talking about tax: The discursive distance between 38 Degrees and GetUp. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1705220
273. Vedres, B. (2022). Multivocality and robust action dynamics in political discourse. Poetics, 90, 101576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2021.101576
274. Vesa, J., Gronow, A., & Ylä-Anttila, T. (2020). The quiet opposition: How the pro-economy lobby influences climate policy. Global Environmental Change, 63, 102117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102117
275. Vogeler, C. S. (2022). The integration of environmental objectives in the common agricultural policy—partisan politics in the European Parliament. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 15(4), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-021-00496-3
276. Vogeler, C. S., Möck, M., & Bandelow, N. C. (2021). Shifting governance cooperatively – coordination by public discourses in the German water–food nexus. Journal of Environmental Management, 286, 112266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112266
277. Vogeler, C. S., Schwindenhammer, S., Gonglach, D., & Bandelow, N. C. (2021). Agri-food technology politics: Exploring policy narratives in the European Parliament. European Policy Analysis, 7, 324–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1114
278. Steinsdorff, S. von, Gottmann, L., Hüggelmeyer, M., Jeske, I.-M., Onkelbach, C., & Siebeking, J. (2021). Plenardebatten als Spiegel sich wandelnder Diskurskoalitionen: Die Positionierung der Bundestagsfraktionen zum Verhältnis von Ökologie und Ökonomie seit 1977. ZParl Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, 52(3), 640–658. https://doi.org/10.5771/0340-1758-2021-3-640
279. Wagner, P., & Payne, D. (2017). Trends, frames and discourse networks: Analysing the coverage of climate change in Irish newspapers. Irish Journal of Sociology, 25(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.7227/IJS.0011
280. Wallaschek, S. (2019). The discursive appeal to solidarity and partisan journalism in Europe’s migration crisis. Social Inclusion, 7(2), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v7i2.1963
281. Wallaschek, S. (2019). Mapping solidarity in Europe. Discourse networks in the Euro crisis and Europe’s migration crisis [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Bremen, Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences (BIGSSS), Department of Social Sciences]. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:46-00107787-17
282. Wallaschek, S. (2020). Analyzing the European parliamentary elections in 2019: Actor visibility and issue-framing in transnational media. In M. Kaeding, M. Müller, & J. Schmälter (Eds.), Die Europwahl 2019. Ringen um die Zukunft Europas (pp. 219–230). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29277-5_18
283. Wallaschek, S. (2020). Contested solidarity in the Euro crisis and Europe’s migration crisis: A discourse network analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(7), 1034–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1659844
284. Wallaschek, S. (2020). Framing solidarity in the Euro crisis: A comparison of the German and Irish media discourse. New Political Economy, 25(2), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1586864
285. Wallaschek, S. (2020). The discursive construction of solidarity: Analysing public claims in Europe’s migration crisis. Political Studies, 68(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719831585
286. Wallaschek, S. (2017). Notions of solidarity in Europe’s migration crisis: The case of Germany’s media discourse. EuropeNow Journal, 11. https://www.europenowjournal.org/issues/issue-11-oct-2017/
287. Wallaschek, S., Kaushik, K., Verbalyte, M., Sojka, A., Sorci, G., Trenz, H.-J., & Eigmüller, M. (2022). Same same but different? Gender politics and (trans-) national value contestation in Europe on Twitter. Politics and Governance, 10(1), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i1.4751
288. Wallaschek, S., Starke, C., & Brüning, C. (2020). Solidarity in the public sphere: A discourse network analysis of German newspapers (2008–2017). Politics and Governance, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2609
289. Wang, S. (2018). Dynamic constructed climate change discourses and discourse networks across newspapers in China around three critical policy moments: A comparative study of People’s Daily, China Daily, and Southern Weekend [PhD thesis, University of Exeter, Department of Politics]. http://hdl.handle.net/10871/33375
290. Wang, C., & Wang, L. (2017). Unfolding policies for innovation intermediaries in China: A discourse network analysis. Science and Public Policy, 44(3), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw068
291. Wang, Y. (2021). Examining the actor coalitions and discourse coalitions of the opt-out movement in New York: A discourse network analysis. Teachers College Record, 123(5), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812112300506
293. Wang, Y. (2020). Understanding Congressional coalitions: A discourse network analysis of Congressional hearings for the Every Student Succeeds act. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(119), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4451
294. Wesche, J. P., Negro, S. O., Brugger, H. I., Eichhammer, W., & Hekkert, M. P. (2023). The influence of visions on cooperation among interest organizations in fragmented socio-technical systems. Environmental Policy and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2070
295. Westenberger, G.-J., & Schneider, V. (2022). Söders Ökofeuerwerk und die grünfärbung der CSU: Diskursnetzwerke im bayrischen Themenwettbewerb. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 15(4), 641–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-021-00513-5
296. Wibisono, H., Lovett, J. C., & Anindito, D. B. (2023). The contestation of ideas behind Indonesia’s rural electrification policies: The influence of global and national institutional dynamics. Development Policy Review, 41(1), e12650. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12650
297. Wu, J., & Liu, Y. (2020). Deception detection methods incorporating discourse network metrics in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Journal of Information Science, 46(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551518823176
298. Wu, J., & Zhou, L. (2015). DOBNet: Exploiting the discourse of deception behaviour to uncover online deception strategies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(9), 936–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1016116
299. Yan, K., Wu, H., Bu, K., & Wu, L. (2023). The college admission policy evolution from 2003 to 2020 in China – a social network analysis. Higher Education Policy. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-022-00300-1
300. Yap, X.-S., Heiberg, J., Truffer, B., David, E., & Kneib, J.-P. (2023). Emerging global socio-technical regimes for tackling space debris: A discourse network analysis. Acta Astronautica, 207, 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.01.016
301. You, J., Weible, C. M., & Heikkila, T. (2021). Exploring instigator and defender policy scenarios in the siting of energy infrastructure. Politics & Policy, 50(1), 8–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12442
302. Yordy, J., Durnová, A., & Weible, C. M. (2023). Exploring emotional discourses: The case of COVID-19 protests in the US media. Administrative Theory & Praxis. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2023.2176074
303. Yordy, J., You, J., Park, K., Weible, C. M., & Heikkila, T. (2019). Framing contests and policy conflicts over gas pipelines. Review of Policy Research, 36(6), 736–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12364
304. You, J., Yordy, J., Park, K., Heikkila, T., & Weible, C. M. (2020). Policy conflicts in the siting of natural gas pipelines. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(4), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1778457
305. You, J., Yordy, J., Weible, C. M., Park, K., Heikkila, T., & Gilchrist, D. (2021). Comparing policy conflict on electricity transmission line sitings. Public Policy and Administration, 38(1), 107--129. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767211036800
306. Žaková, K. (2023). Expertization of the Czech climate policy network [Master’s thesis, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies]. https://is.muni.cz/th/f9wdw/