Toward Coequality of the Social Sciences in the National Climate Assessment.

Integration of the social sciences into climate assessments enhances report content and actionable science. The literature has identified the benefits and challenges in achieving coequal intellectual partnerships between the social and biogeophysical sciences in climate research. Less has been written on how to rectify the issue in the particular institutional context of a climate assessment. This article uses qualitative research methods to analyze social science integration in the United States' Fourth National Climate Assessment. It presents findings from focus groups held with social science-and nonsocial science-trained report authors. It finds that knowledge governance, or the formal and informal mechanisms shaping how information is produced and used, and cultural worldviews about the role of social sciences in assessments and assessments in society, affected social science integration. Report authors' principal orientation toward the social sciences was as a means of achieving what they saw as the assessment's public function, namely, to support education, decision-making, and action. Author expertise, report framing, and knowledge systems were other key themes that emerged. Based on this analysis, we propose potential pathways toward coequal intellectual partnerships in assessments by expanding the diversity of chapter teams' expertise, enhancing connections between authors and society, reconsidering report framing, and broadening inclusion of knowledge systems. We also discuss the potential role of applying social science theories and methods throughout the report life cycle from framing and engagement to evaluation.

[1]  Kathleen C. Williams,et al.  Advancing Translational Research in Environmental Science: The Role and Impact of Social Sciences. , 2021, Environmental science & policy.

[2]  T. Vanwing,et al.  Breaking monologues in collaborative research: bridging knowledge systems through a listening-based dialogue of wisdom approach , 2021, Sustainability Science.

[3]  E. Turnhout,et al.  How norms, needs, and power in science obstruct transformations towards sustainability , 2021 .

[4]  Eduardo S Brondízio,et al.  Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large‐scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment , 2020 .

[5]  Baruch Fischhoff Making behavioral science integral to climate science and action , 2020, Behavioural Public Policy.

[6]  P. Mote,et al.  Beyond Climate Impacts: Knowledge Gaps and Process-Based Reflection on Preparing a Regional Chapter for the Fourth National Climate Assessment , 2020, Weather, Climate, and Society.

[7]  E. Marino,et al.  Is Vulnerability an Outdated Concept? After Subjects and Spaces , 2020 .

[8]  R. Meyer,et al.  Sponsoring actionable science: what public science funders can do to advance sustainability and the social contract for science , 2020, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.

[9]  Piers M. Forster,et al.  A topography of climate change research , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[10]  B. Hubbell,et al.  Institutional insights on integrating social and environmental science for solutions-driven research. , 2019, Environmental science & policy.

[11]  M. Pelling,et al.  Beyond Technical Fixes: climate solutions and the great derangement , 2019, Climate and Development.

[12]  G. Caniglia,et al.  Learning to collaborate while collaborating: advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research , 2019, Sustainability Science.

[13]  Andrew D. Jones,et al.  Evaluating Knowledge to Support Climate Action: A Framework for Sustained Assessment. Report of an Independent Advisory Committee on Applied Climate Assessment , 2019, Weather, Climate, and Society.

[14]  B. Arheimer,et al.  Evolving Climate Services into Knowledge–Action Systems , 2019, Weather, Climate, and Society.

[15]  H. Bulkeley Navigating climate’s human geographies: Exploring the whereabouts of climate politics , 2019, Dialogues in Human Geography.

[16]  J. Roberts,et al.  Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: A social science review , 2018, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Climate change.

[17]  Andrew K. Jorgenson,et al.  Social science perspectives on drivers of and responses to global climate change , 2018, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Climate change.

[18]  M. Turner,et al.  A critical political ecology of human dimensions of climate change: Epistemology, ontology, and ethics , 2018 .

[19]  K. Norgaard The sociological imagination in a time of climate change , 2017 .

[20]  Peter H. Gleick,et al.  Reframing climate change assessments around risk: recommendations for the US National Climate Assessment , 2017, Environmental research letters : ERL [Web site].

[21]  Peter M. Haas,et al.  A road map for global environmental assessments , 2017 .

[22]  Noam Obermeister,et al.  From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments , 2017 .

[23]  A. Beatty Characterizing Risk in Climate Change Assessments: Proceedings of a Workshop , 2016 .

[24]  James Boyd,et al.  Practices for facilitating interdisciplinary synthetic research: the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) , 2016 .

[25]  R. Moss,et al.  Aspirations and common tensions: larger lessons from the third US national climate assessment , 2016, Climatic Change.

[26]  D. Liverman U.S. National climate assessment gaps and research needs: overview, the economy and the international context , 2016, Climatic Change.

[27]  Robert J. Brulle,et al.  Climate change and society : sociological perspectives , 2015 .

[28]  Ana Viseu,et al.  Integration of social science into research is crucial , 2015, Nature.

[29]  N. Castree Geographers and the discourse of an earth transformed: influencing the intellectual weather or changing the intellectual climate? , 2015 .

[30]  D. Victor Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy , 2015, Nature.

[31]  P. Stern,et al.  Integrating social science in energy research , 2015 .

[32]  Susanne C. Moser,et al.  The social heart of global environmental change , 2014 .

[33]  Richard H. Moss,et al.  From global change science to action with social sciences , 2014 .

[34]  S. Dessai,et al.  Actionable Knowledge for Environmental Decision Making: Broadening the Usability of Climate Science , 2013 .

[35]  Nicola J. Grigg,et al.  Towards decision-based global land use models for improved understanding of the Earth system , 2013 .

[36]  Fergus Lyon,et al.  Transdisciplinary environmental research: building trust across professional cultures , 2013 .

[37]  H. Weiss,et al.  Contribution of anthropology to the study of climate change , 2013 .

[38]  Carole L. Crumley,et al.  Reconceptualizing the 'Anthropos' in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research , 2013 .

[39]  Susan K. Gardner Paradigmatic differences, power, and status: a qualitative investigation of faculty in one interdisciplinary research collaboration on sustainability science , 2013, Sustainability Science.

[40]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Cool Heads for a Hot World – Social Sciences Under a Changing Sky , 2012 .

[41]  Nkoli Ezumah,et al.  Quality assurance of qualitative research: a review of the discourse , 2011, Health research policy and systems.

[42]  Arnout R. H. Fischer,et al.  When Natural met Social: A Review of Collaboration between the Natural and Social Sciences , 2011 .

[43]  S. Crate Climate and Culture: Anthropology in the Era of Contemporary Climate Change , 2011 .

[44]  L. Dilling,et al.  Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy , 2011 .

[45]  Merritt Polk,et al.  Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report , 2011 .

[46]  W. Reid,et al.  Earth System Research Priorities , 2009, Science.

[47]  Barbara Fawcett Vulnerability , 2009 .

[48]  Steven Yearley,et al.  Sociology and Climate Change after Kyoto , 2009 .

[49]  V. Strang Integrating the social and natural sciences in environmental research: a discussion paper , 2009 .

[50]  Lynn P. Nygaard,et al.  Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses , 2007 .

[51]  M Granger Morgan,et al.  Learning from the U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[52]  Maria Carmen Lemos,et al.  The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments , 2003 .

[53]  Pamela Jordan Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques , 1994 .

[54]  David R. Easterling,et al.  Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II , 2017 .

[55]  N. Oreskes How earth science has become a social science , 2015 .

[56]  J. Maldonado,et al.  Engagement with indigenous peoples and honoring traditional knowledge systems , 2015, Climatic Change.

[57]  Robert Fox,et al.  Getting There From Here , 1998 .