Satire has long offered social and political commentary while entertaining audiences. Focusing on a Canadian stage play and its local reception, this article considers some of the key benefits and challenges of using satire to promote public engagement with climate change science. It demonstrates that satire can promote active and positive engagement with climate change debates. However, using satire risks confining representations to the humorous realm and requires communicators to consider the humor preferences of different publics. The article proposes recommendations for using satire in science communications.
BakhtinM. M. (1987). Epic and novel (EmersonC.HolquistM., Trans.). In HolquistM. (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp. 3-40). Austin: University of Texas Press.
2.
BeckenS. (2007). Tourists’ perception of international air travel’s impact on the global climate and potential climate change policies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15, 351-368.
3.
BergsonH. (2004). Laughter: An essay on the meaning of the comic (BreretonT. C.RothwellF., Trans.). Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.
4.
BodmerW. (1985). The public understanding of science. London, England: Royal Society.
5.
CookJ. (1982). Narrative, comedy, character and performance. In CookJ. (Ed.), BFI dossier 17: Television sitcom (pp. 13-18). London, England: British Film Institute.
6.
FranklandJ.BloorM. (1999). Some issues arising in the systematic analysis of focus group materials. In BarbourR. S.KitzingerJ. (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 144-155). London, England: Sage.
7.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
8.
GriffinD. (1994). Satire: A critical reintroduction. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.
9.
HerrC. J. (2007). Satire in modern and contemporary theater. In QuinteroR. (Ed.), A companion to satire (pp. 460-475). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
10.
HodgartM. (2010). Satire: Origins and principles. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
11.
House of Lords. (2000). Science and society: Third report. London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
12.
HowellR. A. (2011). Lights, camera . . . action? Altered attitudes and behaviour in response to the climate change film the age of stupid. Global Environmental Change, 21, 177-187.
13.
HowellR. A. (2014). Communications on individuals’ attitudes and behavior: Investigating the long-term impacts of climate change. Environment and Behavior, 46, 70-101.
14.
HowellR. A. (in press). Using the transtheoretical model of behavioural change to understand the processes through which climate change films might encourage mitigation action. International Journal of Sustainable Development.
15.
KitzingerJ.BarbourR. S. (1999). Introduction: The challenge and promise of focus groups. In KitzingerJ.BarbourR. S. (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 1-20). London, England: Sage.
16.
KolbB. M. (2005). Marketing for cultural organisations: New strategies for attracting audiences to classical music, dance, theatre and opera. Cork, Ireland: Oak Tree Press.
17.
KuipersG. (2006). Good humor, bad taste: A sociology of the joke. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
18.
LorenzoniI.JonesM.TurnpennyJ. R. (2006). Climate change, human genetics and postnormality in the UK. Futures, 39, 65-82.
19.
LoweT.BrownK.DessaiS.França DoriaM. D.HaynesK.VincentK. (2006). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 435-457.
20.
MorreallJ. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany: State University of New York.
21.
MulkayM. (1988). On humour: Its nature and its place in modern society. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
22.
NealeS.KrutnikF. (1990). Popular film and television comedy. New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
Nicholson-ColeS. A. (2005). Representing climate change futures: A critique on the use of images for visual communication. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29, 255-273.
24.
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778.
25.
NiskerJ.MartinD. K.BluhmR.DaarA. S. (2006). Theatre as a public engagement tool for health-policy development. Health Policy, 78, 258-271.
26.
O’NeillS.Nicholson-ColeS. (2009). “Fear won’t do it”: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30, 355-379.
27.
PaulW. (1994). Laughing screaming: Modern Hollywood horror and comedy. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
28.
PrendergastM.SaxtonJ. (2009). Theories and history of applied theatre. In PrendergastM.SaxtonJ. (Eds.), Applied theatre: International case studies and challenges for practice (pp. 3-19). Bristol, England: Intellect.
29.
RozikE. (2010). Generating theatre meaning: A theory and methodology of performance analysis. Eastbourne, England: Sussex Academic Press.
30.
SpicerR. N. (2011). Before and after The Daily Show: Freedom and consequences in political satire. In GoodnowT. (Ed.), The Daily Show and rhetoric: Arguments, issues, and strategies (pp. 19-41). Lanham, MD: Lexington.
31.
WhitmarshL. (2009). What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming.”Public Understanding of Science, 18, 401-420.
