{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"analysis_type":["grounded theory"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'grounded theory' for facet 'analysis_type' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":2,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?analysis_type=grounded+theory","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"ucs-000990","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/ucs-000990","title":"Research Priorities for Climate Litigation 2026 Report","publisher":{"name":"Union of Concerned Scientists","organization":"union-of-concerned-scientists"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2026-08","source_url":"https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2026-08/Research-Priorities-Climate-Litigation_0.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report synthesizes interviews with 25 climate litigation practitioners to identify critical gaps in scientific evidence needed for legal accountability. It highlights ten research priorities, including advances in end-to-end attribution science, quantification of noneconomic loss and damage, and the impact of industry disinformation. The authors also detail barriers to integrating science in courts, such as the 'resource imbalance' between public-interest lawyers and industry defendants, the differing standards of 'certainty' between science and law, and political interference in the judiciary.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000990#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The report identifies ten specific research priorities to support climate litigation, with a high demand for 'end-to-end attribution research' that can link specific emission sources to specific harms in a single study to establish causal chains for tort and human rights cases.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000990#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a critical need for research that quantifies noneconomic loss and damage, such as psychological harm, culture loss, and intergenerational trauma, which are persuasive in court but currently lack established measurement methodologies.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000990#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Litigators highlight a gap in research quantifying the actual climate consequences of industry deception and disinformation, specifically requesting counterfactual modeling to estimate emissions trajectories that would have occurred without such obstruction.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000990#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The integration of scientific evidence is hindered by structural barriers, including a significant resource imbalance where industry defendants can employ 'armies of lawyers' to attack the credibility of individual scientists or the integrity of studies.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000990#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Disciplinary barriers exist due to conflicting definitions of certainty; while scientists may require near-absolute certainty, civil law is often satisfied with a 'preponderance of evidence' (greater than 51%), leading to situations where scientific rigor is misinterpreted as legal weakness.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000990#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Institutional barriers include political interference in the judiciary, exemplified by the removal of a climate science chapter from the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence in the United States.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000990#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a systemic lack of independent expert witnesses in fields like marine science and mining engineering because many qualified experts have conflicting ties to industry.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000990#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["climate change litigation","extreme event attribution","loss and damage","climate finance","carbon emission trading","carbon offset","environmental law"],"geography_discussed":["United States","Netherlands","Mexico","Chile","Africa","Asia","Europe","Latin America","North America","Australia"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["qualitative analysis","interviews","grounded theory"]},{"id":"prio-001490","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/prio-001490","title":"Investigating everyday acts of contributing as ‘admission tickets’ to belong to the nation in Norway","publisher":{"name":"Peace Research Institute Oslo","organization":"peace-research-institute-oslo"},"document_type":"research paper","language":"en","date_published":null,"source_url":"https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/c032614a-eda5-4c95-becb-3a78bdb9a5b8/Investigating everyday acts of contributing as admission tickets to belong to the nation in Norway.pdf?inline=true","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The study examines the relationship between contributing and belonging in Norway, finding that the act of contributing functions as an 'admission ticket' for those experiencing ontological insecurity. Through interviews in a rural municipality, the author identifies that while non-migrants possess a taken-for-granted sense of belonging, internal and international migrants use public contributions—such as employment, language learning, and volunteering—to gain recognition. The paper argues that belonging is practiced across multiple geographical scales, with internal migrants focusing on local acceptance and international migrants seeking both local and national recognition.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"prio-001490#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The act of contributing is conceptualised by research participants as an 'admission ticket' to belong, where the effort to contribute is more significant than the specific nature or quality of the contribution itself.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"prio-001490#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a widespread background expectancy in Norwegian nationhood that all residents, regardless of their migration status, are expected to contribute to society to be respected and integrated.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"prio-001490#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Individuals with no migration background experience 'ontological security,' meaning their belonging is taken-for-granted, and they often contribute without a conscious desire for external recognition.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"prio-001490#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Internal migrants in Norway often experience an ambivalent state of ontological security: they feel secure in their national identity but feel insecure at the local scale, using contributions to gain acceptance within their specific municipality.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"prio-001490#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"International migrants experience ontological insecurity at both local and national levels, and they perceive their contributions as a way to achieve recognition across both scales simultaneously.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"prio-001490#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The ability to use contributing as an 'admission ticket' is constrained by hegemonic structures and racialised imaginaries of 'sameness,' meaning non-white immigrants may face greater barriers to recognition despite their efforts.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"prio-001490#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":[],"geography_discussed":["Fiord"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["qualitative research","semi-structured interviews","grounded theory"]}]}