Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate

Mercer-Mapstone, L; Rifkin, W; Moffat, K; Louis, W

Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate

Mercer-Mapstone, L

Rifkin, W Moffat, K Louis, W

Permalink

Publisher:: ELSEVIER SCI LTD
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Resources Policy, 2017, 54, pp. 137-146
Issue Date:: 2017-12-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	1-s2.0-S0301420717301770-main.pdf	Published version	252.57 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Mercer-Mapstone, L https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7441-6568
dc.contributor.author	Rifkin, W
dc.contributor.author	Moffat, K
dc.contributor.author	Louis, W
dc.date.accessioned	2022-10-25T02:58:38Z
dc.date.available	2022-10-25T02:58:38Z
dc.date.issued	2017-12-01
dc.identifier.citation	Resources Policy, 2017, 54, pp. 137-146
dc.identifier.issn	0301-4207
dc.identifier.issn	1873-7641
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162673
dc.description.abstract	Social licence to operate (SLO) has become an important part of the natural resource management discourse, particularly in relation to contested arenas. The social accountability constituted by SLO requires engagement and relationship-building efforts, which are increasingly prescribed to include ‘meaningful dialogue’ as central. How such dialogue translates into practice has been subject to little research in the SLO context. To examine explicitly the role of dialogue in strategies to address SLO, we present, using an interdisciplinary lens, a conceptual framework. We characterise two dialogue models relevant to SLO from the literature on dialogue: a learning model and a strategic model. We then analyse how these models arise in five engagement frameworks drawn from academic and grey literature. We assess how these frameworks situate, conceptualise, and seek to operationalise dialogue. This analysis highlights key themes that indicate that dialogue in SLO is predominantly portrayed as a goal-oriented, strategic process – rather than a learning and relationship-building process, though in both models dialogue can have a disruptive role. Conceptual clarity is needed, however, as dialogue sometimes refers to a process, sometimes to an outcome, and sometimes to an aspiration. Clarifying what dialogue is and what it can achieve are needed to guide future research and practice.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	ELSEVIER SCI LTD
dc.relation.ispartof	Resources Policy
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.09.007
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	0914 Resources Engineering and Extractive Metallurgy, 1605 Policy and Administration
dc.subject.classification	Environmental Sciences
dc.title	Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	54
utslib.for	0914 Resources Engineering and Extractive Metallurgy
utslib.for	1605 Policy and Administration
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Provost
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2022-10-25T02:58:37Z
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	54

Abstract:

Social licence to operate (SLO) has become an important part of the natural resource management discourse, particularly in relation to contested arenas. The social accountability constituted by SLO requires engagement and relationship-building efforts, which are increasingly prescribed to include ‘meaningful dialogue’ as central. How such dialogue translates into practice has been subject to little research in the SLO context. To examine explicitly the role of dialogue in strategies to address SLO, we present, using an interdisciplinary lens, a conceptual framework. We characterise two dialogue models relevant to SLO from the literature on dialogue: a learning model and a strategic model. We then analyse how these models arise in five engagement frameworks drawn from academic and grey literature. We assess how these frameworks situate, conceptualise, and seek to operationalise dialogue. This analysis highlights key themes that indicate that dialogue in SLO is predominantly portrayed as a goal-oriented, strategic process – rather than a learning and relationship-building process, though in both models dialogue can have a disruptive role. Conceptual clarity is needed, however, as dialogue sometimes refers to a process, sometimes to an outcome, and sometimes to an aspiration. Clarifying what dialogue is and what it can achieve are needed to guide future research and practice.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162673