Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-12
A State of Emergency or Business as Usual in Climate Science Communication? A Three-Dimensional Perspective on the Role Perceptions of Climate Scientists,Climate Journalists,and Citizens
Building on post-normal science, Brüggemann et al. (2020) suggest that the uncertain, disputed, high-stakes, and urgent character of the climate challenge facing modern societies may alter the conventional notion of what is expected of scientists, journalists, and citizens in the public discussion of climate science. This article examines this notion via 15 focus groups with climate scientists, climate journalists, and citizens (N = 76). The analysis shows that neither of the three actors want climate scientists and climate journalists to act as advocates. However, interestingly, it is seen as legitimate for climate scientists to express emotions connected to their findings.
ÁrnasonV. (2013). Scientific citizenship in a democratic society. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 927–940.
2.
AuerbachC. F.SilversteinL. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York University Press.
3.
BarbourR. (2018). Doing focus groups (2nd ed.). SAGE.
4.
BloorM.FranklandJ.ThomasM.RobsonK. (2001). Focus groups in social research. SAGE.
5.
BlueG.MedlockJ. (2014). Public engagement with climate change as scientific citizenship: A case study of world wide views on global warming. Science as Culture, 23(4), 560–579.
6.
BoykoffM.OonkD. (2020). Evaluating the perils and promises of academic climate advocacy. Climatic Change, 163(1), 27–41.
7.
BrayD.Von StorchH. (1999). Climate science : An empirical example of postnormal science. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80(3), 439–455.
8.
BrüggemannM.LörcherI.WalterS. (2020). Post-normal science communication: Exploring the blurring boundaries of science and journalism. Journal of Science Communication, 19(3), Article A02.
9.
BrymanA. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
10.
CyrJ. (2019). Focus groups for the social science researcher. In ElmanC.KapiszewskiD.MahoneyJ. (Eds.), Methods for social inquiry: Focus groups for the social science researcher (1st. ed., p. III). Cambridge University Press.
11.
DaviesS.McCallieE.SimonssonE.LehrJ. L.DuensingS. (2009). Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science, 18(3), 338–353.
12.
DonsbachW. (2014). Journalism as the new knowledge profession and consequences for journalism education. Journalism, 15(6), 661–677.
13.
DuarteK.EideE. (2018). Når vitenskapen skal «ut» [When the science is communicated]. Norsk Medietidsskrift, 25(3), 1–18.
14.
FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
15.
FuntowiczS.RavetzJ. (1990). Post-normal science: A new science for new times. Scientific European, October, 20–22.
16.
FuntowiczS.RavetzJ. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.
17.
GetsonJ. M.SjöstrandA. E.ChurchS. P.WeinerR.HatfieldJ. L.ProkopyL. S. (2021). Do scientists have a responsibility to provide climate change expertise to mitigation and adaptation strategies? Perspectives from climate professionals. Public Understanding of Science, 30, 169–178.
18.
GibsonT. A.CraigR. T.HarperA. C.AlpertJ. M. (2016). Covering global warming in dubious times: Environmental reporters in the new media ecosystem. Journalism, 17(4), 417–434.
HanitzschT. (2018). Roles of journalists. In VosT. P. (Ed.), Journalism (pp. 43–61). De Gruyter Mouton.
21.
HanitzschT.ÔrnebringH. (2019). Professionalism, professional identity, and journalistic roles. In Wahl-JorgensenK.HanitzschT. (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 105–122). Routledge.
22.
HanitzschT.VosT. P. (2018). Journalism beyond democracy: A new look into journalistic roles in political and everyday life. Journalism, 19(2), 146–164.
23.
HibberdM.NguyenA. (2013). Climate change communications & young people in the kingdom: A reception study. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 9(1), 27–46.
24.
HilesS. S.HinnantA. (2014). Climate change in the newsroom: Journalists’ evolving standards of objectivity when covering global warming. Science Communication, 36(4), 428–453.
25.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate change 2014 synthesis report summary chapter for policymakers.
26.
JensenK B. (2017). Speaking of the weather: Cross-media communication and climate change. Convergence, 23(4), 439–454.
27.
KotcherJ. E.MyersT. A.VragaE. K.StenhouseN.MaibachE. W. (2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 415–429.
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.
30.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public′s views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194.
31.
MejlgaardN. (2009). The trajectory of scientific citizenship in Denmark: Changing balances between public competence and public participation. Science and Public Policy, 36(July), 483–496.
32.
MejlgaardN.StaresS. (2010). Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship. Public Understanding of Science, 19(5), 545–561.
33.
MottaM. (2018). The polarizing effect of the march for science on attitudes toward scientists. PS—Political Science and Politics, 51(4), 782–787.
34.
NicolaisenP. (2022). Role perceptions in the triangle of climate science communication. Environmental Communication. (in press)
35.
NicolaisenP. (2022). Orchestrating the climate choir: The boundaries of scientific expertise, the relevance of experiential knowledge and tackling misinformation. [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Political Science, Aarhus University.
36.
NisbetM. C.FahyD. (2015). The need for knowledge-based journalism in politicized sciences debates. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 223–234.
37.
PalmR.BolsenT.KingslandJ. T. (2020). Don’t tell me what to do: Resistance to climate change messages suggesting behavior changes. Weather, Climate, and Society, 12(4), 827–835.
38.
PielkeR. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.
39.
RavetzJ. R. (1999). What Is post-normal science. Futures, 31(7), 647–653.
40.
ReinckeC. M.BredenoordM.van MilM. H. W. (2020). From deficit to dialogue in science communication. EMBO Reports, 21(9). Article e51278.
41.
SalathongJ. (2013). Thai audiences and journalists’ responses to a holistic, future-oriented, participatory and empowering (HOPE) model for climate change coverage. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 9(1), 71–85.
42.
SchneiderS. H. (1988). The greenhouse effect and the U.S. summer of 1988: Cause and effect or a media event?Climatic Change, 13(6), 113–115.
43.
SchützA. (1946). The well-informed citizen: An essay on the social distribution of knowledge. Social Research, 13(4), 463–478.
44.
SharmanAHowarthC. (2017). Climate stories: Why do climate scientists and sceptical voices participate in the climate debate?Public Understanding of Science, 26(7), 826–842.
45.
TøsseS. E. (2013). Aiming for social or political robustness? Media strategies among climate scientists. Science Communication, 35(1), 32–55.
46.
WilkeA. K.MortonL. W. (2015a). Climatologists’ communication of climate science to the agricultural sector. Science Communication, 37(3), 371–395.
47.
WilkeA. K.MortonL. W. (2015b). Climatologists’ patterns of conveying climate science to the agricultural community. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(1), 99–110.
48.
YangZ. J.RickardL. N.HarrisonT. M.SeoM. (2014). Applying the risk information seeking and processing model to examine support for climate change mitigation policy. Science Communication, 36(3), 296–324.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
