Building cultural capital in drought adaptation: lessons from discourse analysis

As governments and primary industries work to build the climate resilience of Australian agriculture, individual producers are often called upon to implement strategies to become more adaptive in the face of drought. These strategies include infrastructural changes to agricultural businesses, changes to practices, and the adoption of new skills and knowledge. The transition towards greater drought adaptiveness will also demand broader cultural shifts in the way that drought is defined and approached as an issue facing primary producers. This paper presents the results of a discourse analysis conducted as part of social research exploring the cultural barriers to drought preparedness within the Queensland Government's Drought and Climate Adaptation Program (DCAP). Focusing on media and government accounts, the analysis found two different ways of framing drought and its management in Queensland agriculture. The first, which is dominant in media accounts, emphasises the disruptive power of drought, presenting it as a profound difficulty for producers that is managed using endurance, hope and ingenuity. This frame adopts highly evocative discursive strategies oriented towards mobilising community sentiment and support for producers. The second, which is less prominent overall, downplays drought's disruptive power and counters the emotionality of the adversity discourse by presenting drought as a neutral business risk that can be managed using rational planning skills and scientific knowledge. In discussing these two frames, this paper suggests strategies whereby drought adaptation frames might be made more powerful using more meaningful and emotive narratives that showcase it as a vital practice for ensuring agricultural livelihoods and rural futures in a changing climate.

Automated summary

This paper explores the cultural barriers to drought preparedness within the Queensland Government's Drought and Climate Adaptation Program (DCAP) through discourse analysis, identifying two different ways of framing drought and its management in Queensland agriculture. One frame emphasizes the disruptive power of drought, presenting it as a profound difficulty for producers managed using endurance, hope, and ingenuity, while the other downplays drought's disruptive power and views it as a neutral business risk that can be managed using rational planning skills and scientific knowledge.