Situated within the persistent consensus-action gap on climate change, this study investigates the under-theorized role of university experts as agents of University Social Responsibility (USR). Rather than focusing on downstream media content, it examines the upstream strategic calculus of these experts. The purpose of this paper is to theorize how they function as narrative architects, navigating professional tensions to construct urgency for public and political audiences.
Grounded in an interpretivist paradigm, the study uses a qualitative design based on semi-structured interviews with 22 senior faculty members from China’s Double First-Class universities. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation. Data were analyzed using a hybrid thematic analysis, integrating Entman’s framing functions with the sociology of public intellectuals to build a conceptual model of expert framing.
The analysis reveals a sophisticated repertoire of three dominant frames: Economic Pragmatist, Public Health Imperative and Climate Justice Champion. Crucially, the study uncovers that framing choices are not static but are conditioned by disciplinary backgrounds and real-time audience adaptation. Furthermore, it highlights a profound tension between scientific objectivity and advocacy, leading experts to engage in boundary-work and strategic self-censorship to maintain political legitimacy.
This study bridges the gap between science communication and higher education studies. By shifting the analytical focus from the text to the framer, it not only exposes the institutional and political constraints shaping USR enactment but also argues that effective climate action requires a strategic valuation of experts’ discursive leadership alongside operational sustainability initiatives.
