In climate communication research, knowledge has a rather negative image. Numerous empirical studies have proven that knowledge has very little to no effect on behavioral changes. Related theoretical models like the ‘knowledge-deficit model,’ meanwhile, have been widely criticized for being linear, technocratic and unable to explain public perceptions. Likewise, the truth-to-power model for science-policy interfaces has come under critique insofar as it underscores the importance of values, beliefs, identities and system-inherent logics. A prominent view among climate communication practitioners, by contrast, is that we should proceed ‘from knowledge to action,’ thereby stressing that action–such as behavioral change or political protest–is the key destination to arrive at. In doing so, they risk obscuring the need to continually deepen and discuss our knowledge in order to act most effectively.
Furthermore, it is questionable what kind of knowledge is actually considered as 'low impact' here. In public discourses, there is often a focus on knowledge that stems from the natural sciences, and accordingly on environmental problems. From the perspective of public discourse, this raises the question of what kind of knowledge is actually visible and negotiated in the public sphere at all. An empirically unproved assumption is that social scientific and humanities-based knowledge pertaining to climate change (e.g. on the obstacles to and potential for transformation) has little impact simply because it is hardly visible to the public. This critique also applies to other knowledge producers, such as indigenous peoples and many other social groups.
Accordingly, this Research Topic aims to critically reflect on how climate related knowledge is understood, conceptualized and measured, particularly where communication and public discourse is concerned. In this regard, it seeks to analyze the entire process of knowledge selection at all stages of (public) communication. In understanding what people make out of the knowledge disseminated in public discourses, emotions are a crucial area of interest. Are emotions antagonistic toward information? Conceptualizing the relationship between information and emotion has a long tradition in communication studies, especially in light of current phenomena such as hate speech and disinformation. In addition, the interrelation between knowledge and emotion is important in analyzing how actors in the field (such as those in the Fridays for Future movement) communicate. This Research Topic particularly welcomes articles that take up prior and related work and shed further light on these interrelations, whether theoretically or empirically.
The Topic welcomes all articles (including original research, reviews, and commentaries) that assess different kinds of climate-related knowledge, their (normative) function in communication processes from different perspectives, and critical reflections and systematizations of (theoretical understanding and empirical measuring of) non-knowledge/ignorance and uncertainties. Specific themes may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Theoretical and/or normative perspectives
• theoretical concepts and approaches to describe different types of climate related knowledge that originates from diverse epistemic traditions (natural sciences, social sciences, economics etc.)
• the predominance of natural science perspectives over other epistemic traditions in public discourses about climate change
• approaches to describing the knowledge of ‘lay’ people, indigenous people, or other forms of expertise, particularly with a view to gaining transformative knowledge
• approaches that consider climate related knowledge in relation to theories of emotions and affects
• normative/ethical questions concerning the role of climate related knowledge (and their agents, such as scientists, journalists, climate activists) in communication processes
• different communicative strategies to enhance climate related knowledge.
Methodological perspectives
• methodological challenges in measuring climate-related knowledge in surveys, experiments and/or qualitative methods; for example: media coverage that reports exact and precise results stemming from the natural sciences is important, yet it is often delivered in the form of a technocratic, cumbersome language that exudes authority–does simply recalling this terminology, however, constitute knowledge?
• the relationship between climate related knowledge and other relevant variables such as risk perception/problem awareness trust in science, media use, and personal characteristics
• the role of climate related knowledge in public discourses and different public arenas, both in modern media environments and hybrid media systems.
In climate communication research, knowledge has a rather negative image. Numerous empirical studies have proven that knowledge has very little to no effect on behavioral changes. Related theoretical models like the ‘knowledge-deficit model,’ meanwhile, have been widely criticized for being linear, technocratic and unable to explain public perceptions. Likewise, the truth-to-power model for science-policy interfaces has come under critique insofar as it underscores the importance of values, beliefs, identities and system-inherent logics. A prominent view among climate communication practitioners, by contrast, is that we should proceed ‘from knowledge to action,’ thereby stressing that action–such as behavioral change or political protest–is the key destination to arrive at. In doing so, they risk obscuring the need to continually deepen and discuss our knowledge in order to act most effectively.
Furthermore, it is questionable what kind of knowledge is actually considered as 'low impact' here. In public discourses, there is often a focus on knowledge that stems from the natural sciences, and accordingly on environmental problems. From the perspective of public discourse, this raises the question of what kind of knowledge is actually visible and negotiated in the public sphere at all. An empirically unproved assumption is that social scientific and humanities-based knowledge pertaining to climate change (e.g. on the obstacles to and potential for transformation) has little impact simply because it is hardly visible to the public. This critique also applies to other knowledge producers, such as indigenous peoples and many other social groups.
Accordingly, this Research Topic aims to critically reflect on how climate related knowledge is understood, conceptualized and measured, particularly where communication and public discourse is concerned. In this regard, it seeks to analyze the entire process of knowledge selection at all stages of (public) communication. In understanding what people make out of the knowledge disseminated in public discourses, emotions are a crucial area of interest. Are emotions antagonistic toward information? Conceptualizing the relationship between information and emotion has a long tradition in communication studies, especially in light of current phenomena such as hate speech and disinformation. In addition, the interrelation between knowledge and emotion is important in analyzing how actors in the field (such as those in the Fridays for Future movement) communicate. This Research Topic particularly welcomes articles that take up prior and related work and shed further light on these interrelations, whether theoretically or empirically.
The Topic welcomes all articles (including original research, reviews, and commentaries) that assess different kinds of climate-related knowledge, their (normative) function in communication processes from different perspectives, and critical reflections and systematizations of (theoretical understanding and empirical measuring of) non-knowledge/ignorance and uncertainties. Specific themes may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Theoretical and/or normative perspectives
• theoretical concepts and approaches to describe different types of climate related knowledge that originates from diverse epistemic traditions (natural sciences, social sciences, economics etc.)
• the predominance of natural science perspectives over other epistemic traditions in public discourses about climate change
• approaches to describing the knowledge of ‘lay’ people, indigenous people, or other forms of expertise, particularly with a view to gaining transformative knowledge
• approaches that consider climate related knowledge in relation to theories of emotions and affects
• normative/ethical questions concerning the role of climate related knowledge (and their agents, such as scientists, journalists, climate activists) in communication processes
• different communicative strategies to enhance climate related knowledge.
Methodological perspectives
• methodological challenges in measuring climate-related knowledge in surveys, experiments and/or qualitative methods; for example: media coverage that reports exact and precise results stemming from the natural sciences is important, yet it is often delivered in the form of a technocratic, cumbersome language that exudes authority–does simply recalling this terminology, however, constitute knowledge?
• the relationship between climate related knowledge and other relevant variables such as risk perception/problem awareness trust in science, media use, and personal characteristics
• the role of climate related knowledge in public discourses and different public arenas, both in modern media environments and hybrid media systems.
