This study aims to analyze the use of discourse to solve issues related to coordination between advocacy coalitions in processes of gradual and transformative institutional change related to public policies.,Theoretical background is based on the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), new discursive institutionalism and critical discourse analysis theories. The research examines shorthand notes of public hearings held in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate between 1999 and 2012, carrying out a case study on Belo Monte hydroelectric power plant. The speech extracts were categorized according to the modes of operation of ideology and typical strategies of symbolic construction proposed by Thompson (1995).,The results suggest that the discourse can be an instrument of internal coordination and between coalitions that share beliefs about a policy, as in the case of Belo Monte. Potentially existing coalitions define their identities and set positions on controversial issues, aligning interests and expectations. In the case studied, the modes of operation of ideology verified as instruments of the coalitions were dissimulation, reification, fragmentation, unification and legitimation.,The paper represents a unique analysis of the modes of operation of ideology (Thompson, 1999) in the case of Belo Monte. In addition, the paper aims to contribute to the New Discursive Institutionalism and to the ACF when it uses the critical discourse analysis to articulate a method to analyze the use of the Discourse by the coalitions. In fact, such an approach integrating the ACF, the New Discursive Institutionalism and the critical discourse analysis is something original. Finally, it also addresses a gap in ACF: issues related to advocacy coalition coordination.,Attentive readers linked to organizations working on infrastructure and environmental policies can benefit from the results by envisaging the deliberate manipulation of typical symbolic construction strategies and general modes of operation of ideology.,The study sheds light on the daily and behind-the-scenes disputes among stakeholders who are interested in a certain public policy. It may draw attention to the access and professional use of the shorthand notes of the hearings held at the National Congress.,This paper aims to fill a gap pointed out by Jenkins-Smith et al. (2014) regarding problems of coordination of advocacy coalitions. In addition, it innovates by using critical discourse analysis as a methodological reference in ACF empirical studies. In addition, this work continues a trajectory of two other previously published studies dealing with the same phenomenon: a theoretical essay and a case study.

中文翻译：

---

倡导联盟之间的话语和协调：Belo Monte 的案例

本研究旨在分析在与公共政策相关的渐进式和变革性制度变迁过程中使用话语来解决与倡导联盟之间协调相关的问题。理论背景基于倡导联盟框架（ACF）、新话语制度主义和批判性话语分析理论。该研究调查了 1999 年至 2012 年在巴西众议院和联邦参议院举行的公开听证会的速记，并对贝洛蒙特水电站进行了案例研究。根据汤普森（Thompson，1995）提出的意识形态运作模式和典型的符号建构策略，对语音摘录进行了分类。结果表明，话语可以成为内部协调的工具，也是共享政策信念的联盟之间的工具，就像贝洛蒙特的情况一样。潜在的现有联盟定义了他们的身份并在有争议的问题上设定立场，调整利益和期望。在所研究的案例中，被证实为联盟工具的意识形态的运作模式是伪装、具体化、碎片化、统一和合法化。,本文代表了对案例中意识形态运作模式的独特分析(Thompson, 1999)贝洛蒙特。此外，本文旨在为新话语制度主义和 ACF 做出贡献，因为它使用批判性话语分析阐明了一种分析联盟对话语使用的方法。实际上，这种整合 ACF、新话语制度主义和批判性话语分析的方法是原创的。最后，它还解决了 ACF 中的一个空白：与倡导联盟协调相关的问题。,与从事基础设施和环境政策工作的组织相关的细心读者可以通过设想故意操纵典型的象征性建设策略和一般运作模式从结果中受益。意识形态。该研究揭示了对某个公共政策感兴趣的利益相关者之间日常和幕后的争论。可能会引起人们对全国代表大会听证会速记笔记的访问和专业使用的关注。,本文旨在填补 Jenkins-Smith 等人指出的空白。(2014) 关于倡导联盟的协调问题。此外，它通过在 ACF 实证研究中使用批判性话语分析作为方法论参考进行创新。此外，这项工作延续了之前发表的另外两项处理同一现象的研究的轨迹：一篇理论论文和一篇案例研究。