Categorizing Professionals’ Perspectives on Environmental Communication with Implications for Graduate Education

ABSTRACT The study of environmental communication originated as a diverse multidisciplinary field encompassing a wide array of communicator perspectives. However, as the field evolved, mass media and journalism became its perceived scholarly focus. As a result, environmental communication processes may be less well-understood across other settings, such as scientific and research institutions, non-governmental organizations, and federal agencies. To understand how communicators describe their goals, ethics, and strategies within these contexts, we conducted a three-part study of researchers and practitioners working on environmental issues in the Washington, DC, region between October 2019 and January 2020. Employing Q methodology, we identified four distinct perspectives: capacity-builders, translators, policy and decision-supporters, and cultural changemakers. Each of these perspectives is associated with a different range of goals, ethics, and strategic approaches. We describe graduate educational competencies for each of the perspectives and discuss implications for the design of communication research to meet practitioners’ needs.

[1]  Lisa M. Gring-Pemble,et al.  Sustainable beekeeping, community driven-development, and tri-sector solutions with impact , 2020 .

[2]  Emily Polk,et al.  Situating the Scientist: Creating Inclusive Science Communication Through Equity Framing and Environmental Justice , 2020, Frontiers in Communication.

[3]  C. Vaughan,et al.  Who are boundary spanners and how can we support them in making knowledge more actionable in sustainability fields? , 2020 .

[4]  M. Feliú-Mójer,et al.  Science Communication Demands a Critical Approach That Centers Inclusion, Equity, and Intersectionality , 2020, Frontiers in Communication.

[5]  I. Klyukanov Communication: A Post-Discipline , 2019, European Journal of Communication.

[6]  Young Eun Park,et al.  On the Field of Environmental Communication: A Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature , 2018, Environmental Communication.

[7]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  Structure and development of science communication research: co-citation analysis of a developing field , 2018, Journal of Science Communication.

[8]  Washington Dc,et al.  Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda , 2018 .

[9]  Anthony Dudo,et al.  Understanding Scientists’ Willingness to Engage , 2018, Science Communication.

[10]  B. McGreavy,et al.  Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: the practitioners’ perspectives , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[11]  J. Kevin Hiers,et al.  Linking knowledge to action: the role of boundary spanners in translating ecology , 2017 .

[12]  Matthew A. Williamson,et al.  Developing a translational ecology workforce , 2017 .

[13]  D. Budescu,et al.  Behavioral Science Tools to Strengthen Energy & Environmental Policy , 2017, Behavioral Science & Policy.

[14]  F. Hollander,et al.  Aims and Scopes , 2016, Journal of Cultural Management and Cultural Policy / Zeitschrift für Kulturmanagement und Kulturpolitik.

[15]  A. Meadow,et al.  Lessons from First-Generation Climate Science Integrators , 2016 .

[16]  Robert T. Craig Grounded Practical Theory , 2015 .

[17]  J. Cox,et al.  The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication , 2015 .

[18]  R. Cox,et al.  Emergence And Growth Of The “Field” of Environmental Communication , 2015 .

[19]  S. Ho,et al.  Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior and Media Dependency Theory: Predictors of Public Pro-environmental Behavioral Intentions in Singapore , 2015 .

[20]  Mark Pedelty,et al.  Environmental communication and the public sphere , 2015 .

[21]  Aiora Zabala,et al.  qmethod: A Package to Explore Human Perspectives Using Q Methodology , 2014, R J..

[22]  Ansgar Zerfass,et al.  The Routledge Handbook of Strategic Communication , 2014 .

[23]  Christoph Kueffer,et al.  Responsible Use of Language in Scientific Writing and Science Communication , 2014 .

[24]  M. Oppenheimer,et al.  The ethics of scientific communication under uncertainty , 2014 .

[25]  Karen Hutchins,et al.  Addressing the Complexities of Boundary Work in Sustainability Science through Communication , 2013 .

[26]  Charlotte Clark,et al.  An exploration of future trends in environmental education research , 2013 .

[27]  Christine J. Kirchhoff,et al.  Narrowing the climate information usability gap , 2012 .

[28]  Paul Stenner,et al.  Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation , 2012 .

[29]  E. Cuppen Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods , 2012 .

[30]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks , 2011 .

[31]  T. Steelman,et al.  College and University Environmental Programs as a Policy Problem (Part 2): Strategies for Improvement , 2011, Environmental management.

[32]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. , 2009, American journal of botany.

[33]  P. Stern,et al.  Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making , 2008 .

[34]  R. Cox Nature's “Crisis Disciplines”: Does Environmental Communication Have an Ethical Duty? , 2007 .

[35]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data , 2007 .

[36]  Kirk Hallahan,et al.  Defining Strategic Communication , 2007 .

[37]  R. Pielke,et al.  The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science , 2007 .

[38]  Seth Tuler,et al.  Four Perspectives on Public Participation Process in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making: Combined Results from 10 Case Studies , 2006 .

[39]  B. Johnson,et al.  From the Inside Out: Environmental Agency Views about Communications with the Public , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[40]  S. Jasanoff States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order , 2004 .

[41]  R. Cialdini CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment , 2022 .

[42]  R. Gifford,et al.  Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior : Predicting the Use of Public Transportation ' , 2002 .

[43]  L. Cordingley,et al.  Q methodology. , 1997, Nurse Researcher.

[44]  Robert T. Craig,et al.  Grounded Practical Theory: The Case of Intellectual Discussion , 1995 .

[45]  Sharon R. Baratz,et al.  Intellectual discussion in the academy as situated discourse , 1993 .

[46]  Robert T. Craig Multiple Goals in Discourse: An Epilogue , 1990 .

[47]  S. Arnstein,et al.  Ladder of Citizen Participation , 2020 .

[48]  William Stephenson,et al.  Perspectives in Psychology: XXIII Definition of Opinion, Attitude and Belief , 1965 .

[49]  Victoria Y. Martin Four Common Problems In Environmental Social Research Undertaken by Natural Scientists , 2019 .

[50]  P. Stern New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior , 2000 .

[51]  James L. Kinneavy,et al.  A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse , 1971 .