ABSTRACT
Many technocratic labels and 'buzzwords' presume to be apolitical: concerns climate change, and environment; migration, and integration; social vulnerability, resilience and transformation, among many others, not to mention combinations and recombinations of such themes. Each of these umbrella themes continually sub-divides, with narrower and narrower areas of specialisation, often marked by distinct terminologies. Such buzzwords are particularly prevalent in the literature for both climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR), and underpin their artificial separation. Cynically, some might conclude that the proliferation of overlapping buzzwords is, at root, an exercise in disciplinary politics and the marking of thematic territory. The chapter provides a framework for conducting due diligence. It presents a three-step framework for how we should approach the interrogation of a buzzword. The chapter then illustrates this framework by applying it to a case study of the Nansen Initiative on 'Disaster Displacement'. It also presents the implications of this framework in both research and policy contexts.
