Imke Hoppe
Anne Reif
Monika Taddicken
Irene Neverla- 1Department for Geography, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) München, Munich, Bavaria, Germany
- 2Journalism and Communication Studies, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
- 3Institute for Communication Science, Technical University of Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Lower Saxony, Germany
- 4Institute for Media and Communication Studies, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Editorial on the Research Topic
Rethinking the role of (scientific) knowledge in climate communication
Motivation
In climate communication research, knowledge has come under much critical scrutiny ever since numerous empirical studies demonstrated that it has very little to no effect on behavioral changes (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Taddicken et al., 2018; Poortinga et al., 2019) and is not mono-causally linked to pro-environmental attitudes (Allum et al., 2008). So why does knowledge still hold such significance in research on climate communication? With this Research Topic, we want to inspire the rethinking of the role of (scientific) knowledge in climate communication at the intersection of science communication and climate communication. We aim for an interdisciplinary reflection on climate change-related knowledge processes, theoretical models and empirical research as addressed by four articles in this Research Topic.
Many of the empirical studies in the research field define knowledge as a cognitive resource or as a cognitive component, mainly produced in the scientific sphere (Taddicken et al., 2018). For example, in the tradition of quantitative survey studies, knowledge is often measured against the IPCC consensus, seeking to ensure that the knowledge collected is not only accurate and relevant but also publicly accessible in order to be applicable (Oschatz et al., 2019). Alternatively, qualitative approaches often emphasize the importance of better understanding of how individuals select and construct knowledge, and apply it in their daily lives; a perspective stemming from fields such as Human Geography (Ryghaug et al., 2011; Kessler and Rau, 2023). Complementing those findings from various traditions within social science research, the results from the natural sciences seem to support the “knowledge-action-gap” hypothesis that despite widespread and growing public awareness about the threats posed by climate change [as evidenced by e.g., Special Eurobarometer 538, 2023, global CO2 emissions continue unabated Global Carbon Project, 2023]. Accordingly, Kessler and Rau (2023) point out that the “knowledge-action-gap” should not be understood as an unusual deviation from the norm, but instead as the standard situation for various contexts relating to everyday life.
Accordingly, paradigms such as the knowledge deficit model (Royal Society, 1985) or the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985) have been widely questioned for assuming linear relationships and for being technocratic and unable to explain the (in-)action toward climate mitigation, adaptation and transformation (e.g., Kahlor and Rosenthal, 2009). Similarly for the science-policy interface, the truth-to-power model (Wildavsky, 1979) has been criticized for black-and-white thinking because it ignores the importance of values, beliefs, identities and system-inherent logics in politics (Faehnrich and Ruser, 2019; Donadelli and Gregory, 2022). A normative critique points to another risk of focusing on knowledge, namely that it goes hand-in-hand with the omnipresence of scientific expertise in public discourses.
From a communication scholars' perspective, an omnipresence of scientific expertise could have another unintended side-effect, namely to hinder engagement and empowerment of wider audiences, as the emphasis is on “elite” scientific and technological knowledge which could popularize technocratic approaches and strengthen a popular “laid back” position (e.g., waiting for the next 10-years study, also discussed as “discourse of delay”, Lamb et al., 2020). Insofar as epistemic authority (Raviv et al., 1993) regarding climate change is fully devolved to science and scientific actors, this risks making climate change less of a deep human concern but rather a “technical” one invested in those elites who are able to speak the language of science (Donadelli and Gregory, 2022). Instead, Hulme (2009) recommends that we culturally reflect on the relationship between nature and humanity more thoroughly. For example, local ecological knowledge (LEK) and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) have been identified as very relevant forms of knowledge for both: producing and communicating science (Reyes-García et al., 2020). Another learning from the critique on the “knowledge-action-gap” and prominent views among climate communication practitioners is to proceed “from knowledge to action” (Defila et al., 2012), stressing that social action—e.g., behavioral change—is the key goal, rather than knowledge (e.g., see Sippel et al., 2022).
In summary: The concept of Western oriented, scientific and science-related knowledge as a kind of universal superpower for climate communication is broadly questioned—empirically, theoretically and normatively.
But while the limitations of the classical concept of knowledge as the precursor to action for the field of climate communication seem evident, there is a growing interest in the research field and the practice of science communication (e.g., see the rise of initiatives, networks and research programs to foster them; Leßmöllmann et al., 2020). Ongoing trends such as science slams, TED Talks and art-meets-science exhibitions are founded on the assumption that many publics are fascinated by science and its powerful ways of creating and showcasing scientific knowledge. Organizations such as Science Media Centers (see Rödder, 2015) rely on the importance and relevance of scientific knowledge for journalism and, relatedly, for a collection of sub-systems in modern societies. Current crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic seem to demonstrate the importance of evidence-based science communication in practice (Weingart et al., 2022; Gerber, 2023), even though the concept has its limitations.
So while there are huge criticisms on climate communication placing scientific knowledge at the forefront, scientific knowledge and scientific expertise are seen as valuable resources for modern societies to better understand risks, threats and windows of opportunities. In journalistic media, scientific knowledge about climate change is prevalent and available for many audiences and decision-makers, based on authoritative sources such as IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports (Schäfer et al., 2014). Due to these scientific or science-related drivers of public opinion—and, thus, the representation of scientific knowledge—climate change is one of the most prominent science topics in media coverage worldwide and has contributed to a high awareness level of climate change among publics, especially in industrialized countries (Schmidt et al., 2013).
For science communication research, the analysis of misinformation and science denial (Walter et al., 2018) needs a clear definition of the respective counterpart—namely information, knowledge and consensus, to be able to distinguish misinformation from “information”. And how could a “false balance” (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004) of climate reporting have been revealed without the reference to the consensus of scientific knowledge? So, despite the critiques of theoretical models which place knowledge at the center of their assumptions, many climate communication research and practices broadly rely on it.
Science communication practices cited above often thrive in public spheres for people seeking a blend of (cognitive) information and (affective) entertainment, indicating a different understanding of how to deliver scientific knowledge, with the underlying assumption that information is at odds with entertainment and insufficient on its own (see Früh et al., 1996; Klaus, 2008; Ritterfeld et al., 2009; Bilandzic and Blessing, 2022). Following this seperation, attempts are made to “package knowledge” with entertainment strategies—to hide knowledge like medicine in a spoonful of sugar. But perhaps it's not about the “bitter knowledge” at all, but rather about linearity, overwhelming complexity of information, and a “patronizing attitude” of communicators. Indeed, there is a major paradigm shift in science communication, which has transitioned from traditional linear models focused on information transfer to more participatory and dialogue-centered methods (Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009). So maybe knowledge does not need to be hidden at all, but rather integrated gradually, interactively as part of a more dialogue-oriented communication. In dialogue-oriented science communication, research has identified key characteristics, primarily emphasizing the mutual exchange of meanings and perspectives. For instance, in public and online dialogues, scientists are expected not only to disseminate information but also to actively listen and understand other perspectives: “Science communication based on the dialogue model—also referred to as public engagement with science—foregrounds a two-way flow of information (…). A key feature is mutual learning (..). The dialogue model explicitly acknowledges different forms of knowledge, scientists and non-experts have equal status, and together they are expected to learn with and from each other.” (Reincke et al., 2020, p. 2). With this quote, it becomes evident that other forms of knowledge, distinct from Western-oriented scientific knowledge, are much more valued than in previous models of science communication. This line of thought has been further developed, with intensive deliberation on transdisciplinarity and the integration of plural perspectives into the production of scientific knowledge itself (Kurath and Gisler, 2009; Harris et al., 2010). For the realm of communicating about climate change, this new richness adds another layer and one could ask: Which knowledge receives communicative attention, is deemed effective for transformation? And could these collectively negotiated pools of knowledge potentially make a decisive difference in communication and in moving “from knowledge to action?” How to empirically cope with the joint production and negotiation of knowledge in non-linear communication? This has been the starting point of this Research Topic that is a collection of four articles.
Pathways of the articles in this Research Topic
To shed a critical light on the question of how knowledge is defined and understood in climate communication research, Fage-Butler discusses how strongly knowledge and values are interconnected and pleads that the two concepts should not be understood as independent from each other. Consistent with this approach, she demonstrates the importance of social media data in getting a closer look at the connection between knowledge and values in people's everyday understanding of the world. Fage-Butler recommends not focusing on the knowledge of epistemic authorities from the scientific sphere and on how far this is “understood” by “lay audiences”, but on examining the knowledge of people from their perspective—and better understanding how their values are closely interrelated with knowledge, acting, for example, as the selective lens.
Based on the conceptual distinction between awareness-knowledge and principles-knowledge, Arlt et al. identify relevant facts about the energy transition within a trans- and interdisciplinary project and explore the knowledge levels of Germans. The question of how exposure to issue-related journalistic media content and direct information from scientists or other relevant agents engaged in the energy transition is associated with people's knowledge levels is at the heart of the survey study. The authors show that public knowledge of changes in the energy system and of hydrogen is very limited thus far. Furthermore, received information has only a limited influence on people's engagement with the issue.
Soßdorf and Burgi focus on activists as alternative science communicators and agents of change and propose a theoretical framework that includes why and how scientific knowledge is used by climate movements as legitimation. Based on this framework, the authors present findings from a survey among activists of the Fridays for Future movement and show the high relevance of scientific information for strategic use inside the movement, and in the movement's general communication. They show how climate science knowledge serves as a moral resource and source of legitimacy for the movement.
Hinks and Rödder explore the relationship between scientific knowledge and the social movement Extinction Rebellion, asking “(i) how does the movement Extinction Rebellion present science in their narrative and (ii) how does this resonate with their constructions of climate futures?” For the first research question, the fundamental role of scientific knowledge for the rhetoric of the movement becomes clear: “telling the truth” is a central theme in all analyzed press releases. Thus, the research of Hinks and Rödder shows the importance of “epistemic and cultural authorities” (p. 12) in providing well-accepted “knowledge” for actors such as social movements, so that they in turn can refer to this authority in public discourses—for example, in the form of “wake-up-calls” designed to enlighten societies.
In these four articles, the authors consider a variety of knowledge types and knowledge contexts that involve diverse agents and their specific roles in the knowledge process. Fage-Butler and Arlt et al. focus on the public's knowledge and highlight the relevance of online media use as a key factor to consider. Hinks and Rödder and Soßdorf and Burgi look at the climate activists and the role of scientific knowledge in their strategic communication. Arlt et al. consider most of the agents potentially involved in the knowledge process by exploring the link between information provided by journalistic media as well as political, scientific, economic and environmental agents and the level of public knowledge. The articles reflect particularly on the authority of science in the knowledge hierarchy in generating and providing “true” and “morally correct” knowledge.
This Research Topic thus covers a range of different social scientific methods and qualitative and quantitative approaches in order to advance research. A theoretical contribution discusses the position and role from which knowledge is defined and understood (Fage-Butler). A survey study analyses how much Germans know about energy transitions and how little this knowledge can be explained by media usage (Arlt et al.; Soßdorf and Burgi). The article by Hinks and Rödder applies a mix of qualitative methods that combines the analysis of press releases, observations and interviews with environmental activists during a UN climate summit. As such, they collected their data at a venue where the sovereignty of interpretation is negotiated. Overall, the Research Topic highlights the values of qualitative as well as quantitative empirical research on climate change-related knowledge.
Continuing challenges for climate communication research
It is evidently clear that four manuscripts alone cannot fulfill the comprehensive research requirements. Further research is needed which has to consider additional challenges: Many voices have raised concerns that a focus on mainly natural science-based knowledge pushes more culturally diverse approaches in the background (often related to the social sciences and humanities) to defining knowledge and exploring new ways of dealing with climate change and finding new pathways for sustainable development (Hulme, 2009). Also, voices based in the humanities have raised concerns, for example, about the black-and-white opposition between knowledge and ignorance and propose studying the interrelation between values and knowledge, as values often act as gatekeepers for what is developed and accepted as “knowledge” (Pulkkinen et al., 2022).
The paradigm shift toward more dialogue-oriented forms of communication about climate change and its theoretical and empirical understanding inspires new research questions, as new intermediaries and communicators—such as social movements and small-scale initiatives—and more non-linear, artistic forms of communication—such as exhibitions—move into the center of interest. In digital media environments—predestined for dialogue-oriented communication—a growing abundance of misinformation (Lewandowsky et al., 2017) and opposing epistemic authorities create conflict, shifting knowledge back into the focus of research. Major buzzwords here are “epistemic crisis” and “the end of truth” (Neuberger et al., 2023). Especially in times of crises—such as the climate crisis—the questions as to which actors the public trusts and which knowledge is present in the public and the media outlets used, and which knowledge is absent, are highly germane.
The four articles in this Research Topic offer just a selection of research work at the intersection of science communication and climate communication. They indicate that the traditional concept of scientific knowledge has to be both enlarged and differentiated: Scientific knowledge is not just a box of wisdom, but is deeply bound up with values. It may be used as a tool and instrument for political activism and as a resource for morality. Obviously, these issues touch on another perspective which is prevalent in other fields of communication research: the topic of affects and emotions in the process of communication (Lünenborg and Maier, 2018; Taddicken and Reif, 2020). How do emotions and affects interrelate with the specific knowledge on climate change (Lidskog et al., 2020; Taddicken and Wolff, 2020)? After more than four decades of public discourse on climate change, the dimension of how emotions and affects link with climate change and climate politics has rarely been explored. On a more general level, the role of knowledge in the intersection of scientific and climate communication could be reflected in a sociocultural and philosophical context. Our Western concept of science, knowledge and communication is deeply rooted in the tradition of the philosophy of the Enlightenment, based on the dualisms of knowledge vs. emotion, reason (Vernunft) vs. emotion, objectivity vs. subjectivity. While moves to establish a “Second Enlightenment” have not prevailed so far, we could try to overcome these dualisms, and render oppositions and ambiguities fruitful when exploring scientific communication and climate communication.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Research Topic, as encapsulated in four contributions and centered on the European context, underscores that despite valid critiques of the deficit model in climate communication, knowledge continues to be a pivotal variable, highlighting the necessity for further exploration and differentiation. Ultimately, one may question the fundamental purpose of climate communication, or science communication more broadly, if it does not center on scientific knowledge. For example, it is questionable what kind of knowledge is often considered as “low impact”. In public discourses, there is often a focus on knowledge that stems from the natural sciences, and accordingly on describing and analyzing environmental problems.
Another assumption is that social scientific and humanities-based knowledge pertaining to climate change (for example, on the obstacles to and potential for transformation) has little impact simply because it is much less publicly visible. This point also applies to other knowledge producers, such as Indigenous peoples and many other social groups. In understanding what people make out of the knowledge disseminated in public discourses, emotions, values and identities are another crucial area of interest. Are emotions inimical to information? Conceptualizing the relationship between information and emotion has a long tradition in communication studies (e.g., Früh et al., 1996; Klaus, 2008; Ritterfeld et al., 2009; Bilandzic and Blessing, 2022), but is rarely brought to bear on the field of science communication and climate communication.
For communicating about climate change, the new richness in understanding knowledge as evolving in dialogue and participation adds another layer relevant for empirical research: Which knowledge forms and knowledge broker receive communicative attention? Which can be seen as effective for communication and transformation? And could collectively, inter- or transdisciplinary negotiated pools of knowledge potentially make a decisive difference in communication and to move “from knowledge to action?” Even while this Research Topic can only sketch very first ideas for answers on these questions, we see those as promising direction for new research in this field.
Author contributions
IH: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AR: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MT: Writing – review & editing. IN: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all authors of the Research Topic and all reviewers for their valuable expertise, time, and resources. Additionally, we would like to thank Elisabeth Hartmann (LMU) for her support.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior,” in Springer Series in Social Psychology. Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, eds. J. Kuhl, and J. Beckmann (Berlin; Heidelberg; New York, NY; Tokyo: Springer), 11–39.
Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., and Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst. Sci. 17, 35–54. doi: 10.1177/0963662506070159
Bilandzic, H., and Blessing, J. N. (2022). Eudaimonic entertainment as new enlightenment: critical thinking as a mind-set effect of narratives. Front. Commun. 7:1016325. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.1016325
Boykoff, M. T., and Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environ. Change Hum. Policy Dimens. 14, 125–136. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
Defila, R. C., Di Giulio, A., Kaufmann, R., and Defila, R., (eds.). (2012). Results of Social-Ecological Research: Vol. 14. The Nature of Sustainable Consumption and How to Achieve It: Results from the Focal Topic “From Knowledge to Action - New Paths towards Sustainable Consumption”. Oekom.
Donadelli, F., and Gregory, R. (2022). Speaking truth to power and power to truth: reflections from the pandemic. Public Org. Rev. 22, 327–344. doi: 10.1007/s11115-022-00606-z
Faehnrich, B., and Ruser, A. (2019). ‘Operator, please'—Connecting truth and power at the science- policy interface. J. Sci. Commun. 18:E. doi: 10.22323/2.18030501
Früh, W., Kuhlmann, C., and Wirth, W. (1996). Unterhaltsame Information oder informative Unterhaltung? Publizistik 41, 428–451. doi: 10.1007/BF03653905
Gerber, A. (2023). Editorial: evidence-based science communication in the COVID-19 era. Front. Commun. 8:1279202. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1279202
Global Carbon Project (2023). The Global Carbon Project (GCP) Publishes the Global Carbon Budget 2023 at COP 28 in Dubai on December 05, 2023. Available at: https://cger.nies.go.jp/gcp/news/20231205.html
Harris, J. A., Russell, J. Y., and Brown, V. A., (eds.). (2010). Tackling Wicked Problems Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination. Earthscan. Available online at: https://www.routledge.com/Tackling-Wicked-Problems-Through-the-Transdisciplinary-Imagination/Brown-Harris-Russell/p/book/9781844079254?srsltid=AfmBOopeIC-CjdNcr8_HQ_aB_13Wp2Bu0PMgU2W6Wd4mzUSm6Hmt1z26
Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kahlor, L., and Rosenthal, S. (2009). If we seek, do we learn? Sci. Commun. 30, 380. doi: 10.1177/1075547008328798
Kessler, S., and Rau, H. (2023). “Worte ohne Taten? Die Kluft zwischen Verantwortung und Wirksamkeit als Dilemma der Nachhaltigkeit,” in Dilemmata der Nachhaltigkeit, eds. N. C. Karafyllis, S. Berg, M. Bergmann, H. Gruber, A. Henkel, D. Mader, et al. (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG), 127–150.
Klaus, E. (2008). “Der Gegensatz von Information ist Desinformation, der Gegensatz von Unterhaltung ist Langeweile,” in Medien — Politik — Geschlecht, eds. J. Dorer, B. Geiger, and R. Köpl (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften), 51–64.
Kollmuss, A., and Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8, 239–260. doi: 10.1080/13504620220145401
Kurath, M., and Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Underst. Sci. 18, 559–573. doi: 10.1177/0963662509104723
Lamb, W. F., Mattioli, G., Levi, S., Roberts, J. T., Capstick, S., Creutzig, F., et al. (2020). Discourses of climate delay. Glob. Sustain. 3:e17. doi: 10.1017/sus.2020.13
Leßmöllmann, A., Dascal, M., and Gloning, T. (2020). Science Communication. Handbooks of Communication Science/HoCS: Vol. 17. (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton).
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., and Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 353–369. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
Lidskog, R., Berg, M., Gustafsson, K. M., and Löfmarck, E. (2020). Cold science meets hot weather: environmental threats, emotional messages and scientific storytelling. Media Commun. 8, 118–128. doi: 10.17645/mac.v8i1.2432
Lünenborg, M., and Maier, T. (2018). The turn to affect and emotion in media studies. Media Commun. 6, 1–4. doi: 10.17645/mac.v6i3.1732
Neuberger, C., Bartsch, A., Fröhlich, R., Hanitzsch, T., Reinemann, C., and Schindler, J. (2023). The digital transformation of knowledge order: a model for the analysis of the epistemic crisis. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 47, 180–201. doi: 10.1080/23808985.2023.2169950
Nisbet, M. C., and Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am. J. Bot. 96, 1767–1778. doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900041
Oschatz, C., Maurer, M., and Haßler, J. (2019). Learning from the news about the consequences of climate change: an amendment of the cognitive mediation model. J. Sci. Commun. 18:A07. doi: 10.22323/2.18020207
Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., Steg, L., Böhm, G., and Fisher, S. (2019). Climate change perceptions and their individual-level determinants: a cross-European analysis. Global Environ. Change 55, 25–35. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.007
Pulkkinen, K., Undorf, S., Bender, F., Wikman-Svahn, P., Doblas-Reyes, F., Flynn, C., et al. (2022). The value of values in climate science. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 4–6. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01238-9
Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., and Abin, R. (1993). Measuring epistemic authority: studies of politicians and professors. Eur. J. Pers. 7, 119–138. doi: 10.1002/per.2410070204
Reincke, C. M., Bredenoord, A. L., and van Mil, M. H. (2020). From deficit to dialogue in science communication: the dialogue communication model requires additional roles from scientists. EMBO Rep. 21:e51278. doi: 10.15252/embr.202051278
Reyes-García, V., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., García-del-Amo, D., and Cabeza, M. (2020). “Operationalizing local ecological knowledge in climate change research: challenges and opportunities of citizen science,” in Springer ebook Collection. Changing Climate, Changing Worlds: Local Knowledge and the Challenges of Social and Ecological Change, 1st Edn, eds. M. Welch-Devine, A. Sourdril, and B. J. Burke (Berlin: Springer International Publishing), 183–197.
Rödder, S. (2015). Science media centres and public policy. Sci. Public Policy 42, 387. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scu057
Royal Society (1985). The Public Understanding of Science: Report of a Royal Society ad hoc Group Endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society. London.
Ryghaug, M., Sorensen, K. H., and Naess, R. (2011). Making sense of global warming: Norwegians appropriating knowledge of anthropogenic climate change. Public Underst. Sci. 20, 778–795. doi: 10.1177/0963662510362657
Schäfer, M. S., Ivanova, A., and Schmidt, A. (2014). What drives media attention for climate change? Explaining issue attention in Australian, German and Indian print media from 1996 to 2010. Int. Commun. Gazette 76, 152–176. doi: 10.1177/1748048513504169
Schmidt, A., Ivanova, A., and Schäfer, M. S. (2013). Media attention for climate change around the world: a comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1233–1248. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.020
Sippel, M., Shaw, C., and Marshall, G. (2022). Ten Key Principles: How to Communicate Climate Change for Effective Public Engagement. Oxford: Climate Outreach.
Special Eurobarometer 538 (2023). Climate Change: Summary Report. Special Eurobarometer: Vol. 538. Brussels; Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Taddicken, M., and Reif, A. (2020). between evidence and emotions: emotional appeals in science communication. Media Commun. 8, 101–106. doi: 10.17645/mac.v8i1.2934
Taddicken, M., Reif, A., and Hoppe, I. (2018). What do people know about climate change — and how confident are they? On measurements and analyses of science related knowledge. J. Sci. Commun. 17:A01. doi: 10.22323/2.17030201
Taddicken, M., and Wolff, L. (2020). ‘Fake news' in science communication: emotions and strategies of coping with dissonance online. Media Commun. 8, 206–217. doi: 10.17645/mac.v8i1.2495
Walter, S., Brüggemann, M., and Engesser, S. (2018). Echo chambers of denial: explaining user comments on climate change. Environ. Commun. 12, 204–217. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2017.1394893
Weingart, P., van Schalkwyk, F., and Guenther, L. (2022). Democratic and expert legitimacy: science, politics and the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Public Policy 49, 499–517. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scac003
Keywords: dialogue-oriented science communication, climate communication, science communication, knowledge, information deficit, information-deficit thinking
Citation: Hoppe I, Reif A, Taddicken M and Neverla I (2024) Editorial: Rethinking the role of (scientific) knowledge in climate communication. Front. Commun. 9:1358274. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1358274
Received: 19 December 2023; Accepted: 14 August 2024;
Published: 28 August 2024.
Edited and reviewed by: Andrea M. Feldpausch-Parker, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, United States
Copyright © 2024 Hoppe, Reif, Taddicken and Neverla. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Imke Hoppe, imke.hoppe@lmu.de