IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v168y2021i1d10.1007_s10584-021-03186-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An IPCC that listens: introducing reciprocity to climate change communication

Author

Listed:
  • Karl Dudman

    (University of Oxford)

  • Sara Wit

    (University of Oxford)

Abstract

As the epistemic hand in the UNFCCC’S political glove, the IPCC is charged with furnishing the global dialogues with ‘reliable knowledge’ on climate change. Much has been written about how this body of scientific information can be communicated more effectively to a diverse public, but considerably less so on the role communication might play in making the IPCC itself more receptive to alternative forms of contribution. Climate change communication remains centred on a unidirectional model that has helped climate science achieve greater public legibility, but so far not explored equivalent channels within institutional thinking for representing public and other non-scientific knowledges. Anticipating a new assessment report and major developments for the Paris Agreement, now is an opportunity to consider ambitious pathways to reciprocity in the IPCC’s communication strategy. Drawing on interdisciplinary insights from social science literatures, we argue that communication is not only inseparable from knowledge politics in the IPCC, but that communication activities and research may prove key avenues for making the IPCC more inclusive. Recognising climate communication as a developed field of study and practice with significant influence in the IPCC, we present a framework for categorising communicative activities into those which help the panel speak with a more human voice, and those that help it listen receptively to alternative forms of knowledge. The latter category especially invites communicators to decouple ‘epistemic authority’ from ‘scientific authority’, and so imagine new forms of expert contribution. This is critical to enabling active and equitable dialogue with underrepresented publics that democratises climate governance, and enhances the public legitimacy of the IPCC.

Suggested Citation

  • Karl Dudman & Sara Wit, 2021. "An IPCC that listens: introducing reciprocity to climate change communication," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 1-12, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:168:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03186-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-021-03186-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-021-03186-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-021-03186-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Montana, Jasper, 2017. "Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: Achieving closure through typologies in IPBES," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 20-27.
    2. Obermeister, Noam, 2017. "From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 80-86.
    3. Meaghan Daly & Lisa Dilling, 2019. "The politics of “usable” knowledge: examining the development of climate services in Tanzania," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 61-80, November.
    4. Lisa Dilling & Anjal Prakash & Zinta Zommers & Farid Ahmad & Nuvodita Singh & Sara de Wit & Johanna Nalau & Meaghan Daly & Kerry Bowman, 2019. "Is adaptation success a flawed concept?," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(8), pages 572-574, August.
    5. Sheila Jasanoff, 2007. "Technologies of humility," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7166), pages 33-33, November.
    6. J. Richard Eiser & Tom Stafford & John Henneberry & Philip Catney, 2009. "“Trust me, I'm a Scientist (Not a Developer)”: Perceived Expertise and Motives as Predictors of Trust in Assessment of Risk from Contaminated Land," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 288-297, February.
    7. I. Díaz-Reviriego & E. Turnhout & S. Beck, 2019. "Participation and inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(6), pages 457-464, June.
    8. Löfmarck, Erik & Lidskog, Rolf, 2017. "Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the knowledge divide," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 22-28.
    9. Mathieu Denis & Susanne C. Moser, 2015. "IPCC: calling social scientists of all kinds," Nature, Nature, vol. 521(7551), pages 161-161, May.
    10. Silke Beck & Martin Mahony, 2017. "The IPCC and the politics of anticipation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(5), pages 311-313, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nadezhda Filimonova & Anastassia Obydenkova & Vinicius G. Rodrigues Vieira, 2023. "Geopolitical and economic interests in environmental governance: explaining observer state status in the Arctic Council," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(5), pages 1-25, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adeyeye, Yemi & Hagerman, Shannon & Pelai, Ricardo, 2019. "Seeking procedural equity in global environmental governance: Indigenous participation and knowledge politics in forest and landscape restoration debates at the 2016 World Conservation Congress," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Ria Dunkley & Susan Baker & Natasha Constant & Angelina Sanderson-Bellamy, 2018. "Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 779-799, December.
    3. Matteo De Donà, 2022. "‘Getting the Science Right’? Epistemic Framings of Global Soil and Land Degradation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Monika Berg & Rolf Lidskog, 2018. "Pathways to deliberative capacity: the role of the IPCC," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 11-24, May.
    5. Hallberg-Sramek, Isabella & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Priebe, Janina & Reimerson, Elsa & Mårald, Erland & Nordin, Annika, 2023. "Combining scientific and local knowledge improves evaluating future scenarios of forest ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    6. Pangbourne, Kate & Mladenović, Miloš N. & Stead, Dominic & Milakis, Dimitris, 2020. "Questioning mobility as a service: Unanticipated implications for society and governance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 35-49.
    7. Schipper, E.L.F. & Tanner, T. & Dube, O.P. & Adams, K.M. & Huq, S., 2020. "The debate: Is global development adapting to climate change?," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    8. Arora-Jonsson, Seema, 2016. "Does resilience have a culture? Ecocultures and the politics of knowledge production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 98-107.
    9. Ferretti, Johanna, 2021. "Elemente erfolgreicher Prozesse im Umgang mit Mensch-Wildtier-Interaktionen: Empfehlungen für die Prozessgestaltung zur Erstellung eines Konfliktmanagementplans Fischerei-Kegelrobben Mecklenburg-Vorpo," Thünen Working Papers 164, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    10. Muradian, Roldan & Pascual, Unai, 2020. "Ecological economics in the age of fear," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    11. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Jane A. Flegal & Aarti Gupta, 2018. "Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 45-61, February.
    13. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    14. Yang Lv & Xinhua Bi & Quanxi Li & Haowei Zhang, 2022. "Research on Closed-Loop Supply Chain Decision Making and Recycling Channel Selection under Carbon Allowance and Carbon Trading," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Shinichiro Asayama, 2021. "Threshold, budget and deadline: beyond the discourse of climate scarcity and control," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Sarah Alexander & Ezana Atsbeha & Selam Negatu & Kristen Kirksey & Dominique Brossard & Elizabeth Holzer & Paul Block, 2020. "Development of an interdisciplinary, multi-method approach to seasonal climate forecast communication at the local scale," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2021-2042, October.
    17. Magnus Boström & Erik Andersson & Monika Berg & Karin Gustafsson & Eva Gustavsson & Erik Hysing & Rolf Lidskog & Erik Löfmarck & Maria Ojala & Jan Olsson & Benedict E. Singleton & Sebastian Svenberg &, 2018. "Conditions for Transformative Learning for Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Review and Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    18. Eriksen, Siri & Schipper, E. Lisa F. & Scoville-Simonds, Morgan & Vincent, Katharine & Adam, Hans Nicolai & Brooks, Nick & Harding, Brian & Khatri, Dil & Lenaerts, Lutgart & Liverman, Diana & Mills-No, 2021. "Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    19. Matias, Denise Margaret, 2017. "Slow onset climate change impacts: global trends and the role of science-policy partnerships," IDOS Discussion Papers 24/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    20. Alejandro Esguerra & Sandra van der Hel, 2021. "Participatory Designs and Epistemic Authority in Knowledge Platforms for Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(1), pages 130-151, Winter.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:168:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03186-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.