TECHNOCRATIC OPTIMISM VS. MORAL IMPERATIVE: MAPPING THE GLOBAL ACADEMIC DISCOURSE IN CLIMATE JUSTICE

Abstract

This research explores the global academic knowledge production on climate justice by analyzing co-occurrence patterns and sentiment orientations in Scopus-indexed literature. Using a dual approach-leixmetric and sentimentomic analysis-the research analyses the co-occurrence relations between justice terms-action, inequality, injustice, mitigation, and right-with policy-governance words such as change, policy, responsibility, and response. The analysis reveals a dominant framing of climate justice molded around rights and action, demonstrating a normative basis on moral obligation and intergenerational equity. Conversely, we find terms such as inequality and injustice being less recurrent and lowly polarized with sentiment, thus seemingly existing more in the realm outside of direct policy discourse, although their consequences are indeed critical. A sentiment analysis of 38 key academic texts (totaling 5664 sentiment-coded segments) reveals an overwhelming technocratic optimism, with 46.6% of texts being positive, 34.6% neutral, and 18.8% negative. Among academic texts, those with the highest positive scores promote the most transformational, equity-based solutions, while those with strong negative sentiments level critiques of policy failures and structural injustices. Words such as “emission” and “mitigation” tend to move the sentiment towards neutrality or positivity, promoting a pragmatic, solution-based discourse, whereas the appearances of “injustice” and “inequality” tilt the scale towards constructive tones rather than alarmist politics. The present study arrives at the conclusion that within the climate justice literature, evolution is taking place along two overlapping framing perspectives: a technocratic optimism that looks at mitigation strategies and policy and a moral imperative stressing rights, equity, and global responsibility. By linking sentimentomics with co-occurrence metrics, this research shall contribute toward deeper insight into how global academic narratives shape the climate justice agenda, revealing an undercurrent of tensions between governance-driven pragmatism and ethically based advocacy.