Aiming for Social or Political Robustness? Media Strategies Among Climate Scientists

This study examines climate scientists’ views on media science communication and their strategies for dealing with journalists and climate deniers. Drawing on scholarly calls for openness and public engagement, particularly the concept of “socially robust knowledge,” this article discusses how climate scientists weigh concerns of control, openness, and transparency when considering how to best communicate with the public through the mass media. The author argues that “socially robust knowledge” neglects the challenges of “medialization” of climate science and proposes that the climate scientists’ strategy can better be described as attempts to achieve “politically robust” communication.

[1]  M. Michael,et al.  From the representation of publics to the performance of 'lay political science' , 2000 .

[2]  D. Lindenmayer.  Merchants of Doubt. How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming , 2012 .

[3]  Jack Stilgoe,et al.  The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks , 2007, Public understanding of science.

[4]  F. Pearce.  The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming , 2010 .

[5]  B. Nerlich.  ‘Climategate’: Paradoxical Metaphors and Political Paralysis , 2010 .

[6]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Science's new social contract with society , 1999, Nature.

[7]  Alan Irwin,et al.  The Received Wisdom:: Opening Up Expert Advice , 2006 .

[8]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Testing Time for Climate Science , 2010, Science.

[9]  Alan L. Kelly,et al.  PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF FOOD RISK ISSUES AND FOOD RISK MESSAGES ON THE ISLAND OF IRELAND: THE VIEWS OF FOOD SAFETY EXPERTS , 2005 .

[10]  Marianne Ryghaug,et al.  The Global Warming of Climate Science: Climategate and the Construction of Scientific Facts , 2010 .

[11]  K. Burchell,et al.  Public culture as professional science , 2009 .

[12]  Nathan Young,et al.  Experts’ understanding of the public: knowledge control in a risk controversy , 2007 .

[13]  M. Mulkay,et al.  Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse , 1984 .

[14]  K. Charmaz,et al.  Constructing Grounded Theory , 2014 .

[15]  E. Brink,et al.  Constructing grounded theory : A practical guide through qualitative analysis , 2006 .

[16]  Mike Michael,et al.  Enrolling the Core Set: The Case of the Animal Experimentation Controversy , 1994 .

[17]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[18]  Mitchell Ness,et al.  The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty , 2003 .

[19]  Maarten A. Hajer,et al.  Authoritative Governance: Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization , 2009 .

[20]  Mike Michael,et al.  Accounting for Animal Experiments: Identity and Disreputable "Others" , 1994, Science, technology & human values.

[21]  V. Dale,et al.  Science and Decisionmaking , 2002 .

[22]  Juliet M. Corbin,et al.  Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2008 .

[23]  Richard Holliman,et al.  Advocacy in the tail: Exploring the implications of ‘climategate’ for science journalism and public debate in the digital age , 2011 .

[24]  M. Boykoff,et al.  Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press☆ , 2004 .

[25]  Mike S. Schäfer.  From Public Understanding to Public Engagement , 2009 .

[26]  Marianne Ryghaug,et al.  Making sense of global warming: Norwegians appropriating knowledge of anthropogenic climate change , 2011, Public understanding of science.

[27]  L. Connelly.  Grounded theory. , 2013, Medsurg nursing : official journal of the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses.

[28]  Michael Guggenheim,et al.  The Reality of Experts and the Imagined Lay Person , 2003 .

[29]  A. Irwin.  The Politics of Talk , 2006 .

[30]  Marianne Ryghaug.  «Some like it hot» – Konstruksjon av kunnskap om klimaendringer i norske aviser , 2006 .

[31]  K. Burchell.  Empiricist selves and contingent “others”: the performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy , 2007 .

[32]  Myanna Lahsen,et al.  Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse : A cultural analysis of a physicist "trio" supporting the backlash against global warming , 2008 .

[33]  Sarah R. Davies,et al.  Constructing Communication , 2008 .

[34]  T. Gieryn.  Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional , 1983 .

[35]  K. Norgaard.  "People Want to Protect Themselves a Little Bit": Emotions, Denial, and Social Movement Nonparticipation* , 2006 .

[36]  Peter Jacques,et al.  The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism , 2008 .

[37]  L. Antilla.  Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change , 2005 .

[38]  N. Hoffart.  Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2000 .

[39]  Governance The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the 'New' Scientific , 2009 .

[40]  K. Burchell.  Boundary Work, Associative Argumentation and Switching in the Advocacy of Agricultural Biotechnology , 2007 .

[41]  A. Petersen,et al.  Opening the black box: scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate , 2009 .