list of figures - acuns · bridging the gap: enhancing dialogue in science-policy interaction to...
Post on 03-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
I
List of Figures
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
II
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. II
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... IV
1. THEMATIC INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANCE OF THIS STUDY ........................................................ 1
2. CLIMATE POLICYMAKING: EVIDENCE-INFORMED OR SCIENCE-POLICY GAP? ................................. 7
2.1. CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATION: STATE OF RESEARCH .................................................................. 7 2.2. PREVIOUSLY UNEXPLORED: CLIMATE SCIENCE COMMUNICATION WITH POLICYMAKERS ........................... 10 2.3. RESEARCH INTEREST: EVIDENCE-INFORMED CLIMATE POLICYMAKING THROUGH DIALOGUE ...................... 12 2.4. ACTORS INVOLVED IN CLIMATE POLICYMAKING: IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH FOCUS ............................. 18
3. DIALOGUE AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIMATE SCIENCE-POLICY COMMUNICATION .................. 24
3.1. WHAT IS DIALOGUE? ................................................................................................................. 24 3.2. DIALOGUE IN PUBLIC RELATIONS THEORY: AN UNATTAINABLE IDEAL? .................................................. 27 3.3. APPLYING DIALOGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS THEORY TO SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION ................................. 34
4. ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AND POLICYMAKERS .............. 37
4.1. PRESENTATION OF STUDY DESIGN ................................................................................................ 37 4.2. RESEARCH METHOD DISCUSSION: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS AND QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS .. 41 4.3. OPERATIONALIZATION OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................. 48
5. EVALUATION OF STUDY RESULTS: SITUATIONAL OCCURRENCE OF DIALOGUE AND OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE ITS POTENTIAL FOR SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION ........................................................ 51
5.1. OCCURRENCE OF DIALOGUE IN CLIMATE SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION ................................................ 51 5.1.1. Mutuality ......................................................................................................................... 51 5.1.2. Propinquity ....................................................................................................................... 57 5.1.3. Empathy ........................................................................................................................... 61 5.1.4. Risk .................................................................................................................................. 66 5.1.5. Commitment .................................................................................................................... 74
5.2. POTENTIAL OF DIALOGUE FOR CLIMATE SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION ................................................. 80 5.2.1. Constraints to Dialogue .................................................................................................... 81 5.2.2. Facilitators of Dialogue ..................................................................................................... 81
6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 84
6.1. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENHANCE DIALOGUE ......................... 84 6.2. CRITICAL REFLECTION AND OUTLOOK ............................................................................................ 87
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE ................................................................................................... VI
APPENDIX B: CATEGORY SYSTEM .......................................................................................................... IX
APPENDIX C: CODE BOOK ....................................................................................................................... X
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................... XIII
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
III
© 2018 JULIA THEILEN
All Rights Reserved
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
IV
List of Acronyms
COP: Conference of Parties
IASS: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Solutions
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
NGO: Nongovernmental Organization
UN: United Nations
UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
UNEA: United Nations Environment Assembly
UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
U.S.: United States (of America)
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
V
Abstract
Climate change communication literature increasingly evolves around the issue of a
communication gap between climate science and policymaking (Hagen, 2016; Priest, 2016;
Warira et al., 2017). However, efficient communication between both groups is crucial to meet
national and international climate goals. Evidence-informed policymaking (Gallo, 2017) in
climate policy is urgently needed. This study explores first, whether the supposed science-policy
gap in communicating scientific facts on climate change is perceived to be existent in practice as
it is in theory. To what extent are climate researchers and policymakers engaging in normative
dialogue? Secondly, this study seeks to identify constraining and facilitating situational factors of
dialogue, in order to give practical recommendations for climate researchers and policymakers to
engage in more efficient dialogue. To conclude, this study seeks to inquire both the occurrence
and the potential of normative dialogue in, and for climate communication practice between
scientists and policymakers. Research is theoretically based on five dialogic principles in the
context of public relations developed by Kent and Taylor (2002): mutuality, empathy,
propinquity, commitment, and risk. Evidence-informed policymaking (Gallo, 2017) and policy-
advisory systems (Mukherjee & Howlett, 2016) additionally serve as relevant theoretical
concepts for this work. With a qualitative research approach to understand climate scientists’ and
policymakers’ experiences with dialogue on an in-depth level, semi-structured expert interviews
were conducted and analyzed against the theoretical framework of the five dialogic principles.
Finally, research results allow to derive practical recommendations for bridging the science-
policy gap by enhancing dialogue between climate science and policymaking.
Keywords: climate change communication, dialogue, science-policy engagement, evidence-
informed policymaking
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
1
1. Thematic Introduction and Relevance of This Study
“What happened (and didn’t) at the Bonn Climate Talks” (Friedman & Plumer, 2017) –
with this headline the New York Times summarized the outcomes of last year’s 23rd Conference
of Parties (COP23) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany. The title implies that despite the international efforts of
negotiators to come together and find global climate policy solutions, big issues remain
unresolved and action on the policy level only occurs slowly. The conference closed with the
modest accomplishment of paving the way to “complete by next year the rules that will set the
Paris agreement in motion” (New York Times, 2017). The Paris agreement was produced during
the COP21 deliberations in 2015, and is “arguably the most important international consensus to
date on the need to reduce carbon emissions” (Priest, 2016, p. 93). Although the Paris agreement
was already signed two years ago, rules for this new global framework have not yet been set
(Deutsche Welle, 2017). Under the Paris agreement, nearly 200 nations vowed to limit the rise in
global temperatures since the industrial revolution to well below two degrees Celsius, and they
submitted individual pledges to curb their greenhouse-gas emissions; wealthy countries promised
to deliver aid to help poor countries develop clean energy and build resilience to disasters.
However, at current state, nations are still far away from meeting their climate goals –
“the wheels of diplomacy turn slowly” (Friedmann & Plumer, 2017). In the New York Times,
Friedman and Plumer (2017) recently reported that pledges for constraining greenhouse gases
currently “put the world on pace for 3 degrees Celsius of warming or more”, which would indeed
result in rising sea levels that would reshape coastlines, put many populated islands underwater
and further lead to a new era of deadly heat waves, floods and droughts.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
2
Climate change is one of the most urgent problems of our time, as recent natural disasters in the
Caribbean, Florida and Mexico show. In 2017, natural disasters caused more damage than in any
of the previous five years, with much of the damage caused by extreme weather events linked to
climate change (UNFCCC, 2018). The damage caused by natural disasters last year was worth
USD 330 billion, nearly double the figure recorded in 2016 (UNFCCC, 2018). In the year of
2017, severe hurricanes in Florida and the Caribbean, flooding in Texas, and huge forest fires in
California, amongst many other weather extremes in Asia and Europe, took away thousands of
lives, left behind destroyed houses and infrastructure, and damaged agriculture.
During COP23, the implementation guidelines of the Paris Agreement were advanced
and the path was set for more ambitious action in the “Talanoa Dialogue” of 2018. The
government of Fiji that held the presidency of COP23, describes the purpose of this Talanoa
Dialogue as to create an inclusive and participatory process that allows countries, as well as non-
state actors, to share stories and showcase best practices in order to urgently raise ambition in
nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Regarding the implementation guidelines for the
Paris agreement, progress towards clear and comprehensive guidelines that make the agreement
operational could be made. This year, countries will need to finalize the implementation
guidelines, as the climate treaty rulebook is due to be adopted at COP24 in Katowice, Poland,
later in 2018. Other key achievements of COP23 worth mentioning here are two efforts to
enhance dialogue around climate change issues: the first ever Open Dialogue between
governments and non-state actors, including civil society, municipal governments and
businesses, within the formal climate negotiations was held. In addition to this, countries at
COP23 agreed to hold an experts dialogue on loss and damage in April 2018 (COP23, 2017).
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
3
Despite these outcomes, a serious concern that resulted from COP23 in Bonn is that the
summit only accomplished the bare minimum of what was necessary to keep the Paris process
going, but it did not accelerate progress (Deutsche Welle, 2017). Obviously, successful dialogue
seems to be of great interest and relevance for global climate policy negotiations. This focus on
promoting dialogue between different parties involved in climate action, with the goal of
accelerating and synchronizing progress on national and global climate policy, is the broad
research interest of the present study.
The latest global climate event to follow COP23 was the One Planet summit in December
2017 in Paris. World leaders gathered to underscore how “financial flows are shifting billions
and trillions towards a low-carbon future that will benefit peoples and livelihoods” (United
Nations, 2017). Looking into the future, it is worth noting that at COP23, a delegation of sub-
national leaders led by Governor Jerry Brown of California and former New York City Mayor
Michael Bloomberg represented ‘America’s Pledge’. They presented a report on the ongoing
efforts by American states, cities, businesses and civil society to uphold the emissions reduction
target of the U.S. under the Paris agreement, despite the U.S. administration’s withdrawal. Very
recently, Bloomberg pledged $4.5 million to uphold the U.S. commitment to the Paris agreement
(Meixler, 2018). California will host the next upcoming event on the climate action agenda: the
Global Climate Action summit for non-state actors in September 2018.
From the way that the above mentioned efforts to initiate dialogue are described on the
UNFCCC website1, an underlying insight that is important for this study can be gained:
professionals, both in the science and policy field, that don’t have an educational background in
communication science but are rather technocratic thinkers, generally tend to perceive 1 https://cop23.com.fj/key-achievements-cop23/
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
4
communication and dialogue in particular as a process, in that they describe it in terms of
participating parties or communication channels used, such as research reports. Technocrats tend
to believe that seeking a clearer conception of the relationship of alternative courses of action
and their outcomes will necessarily lead to a greater consensus on what action is preferable
(Pielke Jr., 2007, p. 35), not acknowledging the importance of a discussion or communication in
general. This study does not inquire communicative processes that are in place within different
multilateral environment policy processes such as the UN Environment Assembly or COP’s. The
present study inquires communication itself, focusing on aspects such as framing, phrasing,
transparency, or commitment to the conversation, and it understands dialogue based on
normative definitions provided by communication science theory (see chapter 2).
Research Interest
Specifically, this study seeks to assess the occurrence of normative dialogue in
communication practice between climate scientists and climate policymakers, and to evaluate the
potential that dialogue has for the reality of science-policy interaction. Ultimately, this study
aims to deduce practical recommendations from empirical research on how to enhance dialogue
to foster evidence-informed climate policymaking.
Behind the background of the controversy of a rapidly aggravating climate crisis, with
increasing financial, ecological and human impact on the world population, but rather slowly
proceeding and insufficient international policy responses, this study has high current relevance
for the practice of communication between climate science and policy. It further contributes to
closing a research gap in climate communication science on communicative interaction between
scientists and policymakers, as opposed to the extensively researched area of communication by
scientist addressing the public at large.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
5
Outline of This Study
To respond to the issues raised above, the theoretical part of this study attempts to inquire
different aspects of the research interest and then relate these in one context. Therefore, chapter 2
explores the field of climate change communication as well as the concept of evidence-informed
policymaking in detail, in order to fully capture both terms and locate them in the overall context
of this study. This leads to the suggestion of dialogue as a mode of communication with
promising potential for enhancing evidence-informed climate policymaking. However, to
acknowledge the realistic complexity of the policymaking process itself, chapter 2 concludes
with implications of these multi-stakeholder dynamics for a narrow research focus of this study.
Chapter 3 follows with a communication science-led inquiry of what dialogue is, aiming to
clarify that colloquial use of the term tends to fall short of the academic, normative
understanding of dialogue. In chapter 3, dialogue is then considered in the context of public
relations theory and previous studies, and finally applied to the context of science-policy
communication on climate change. This allows the development of concrete research questions
deduced from relevant communication theory at the end of chapter 3.
The empirical part of this study (chapters 4 and 5) seeks to find answers to the research
questions, conducting semi-structured expert interviews with climate scientists and
policymakers, and a following qualitative content analysis. For this purpose, the study design and
methodological approach are outlined, followed by a presentation and interpretation of the
results of conducted research behind the background of the research questions.
Finally, chapter 6 summarizes and discusses the key results of this study, giving practical
recommendations to enhance dialogue between climate researchers and policymakers.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
6
Additionally, results are critically reflected by acknowledging limitations of this study, and
suggesting possible inquiries for future research.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
7
2. Climate Policymaking: Evidence-Informed or Science-Policy
Gap?
Climate change communication literature increasingly evolves around the issue of a
communication gap between climate science and policymaking (Hagen, 2016; Priest, 2016;
Warira et al., 2017). However, efficient communication between both groups is crucial to meet
national and international climate goals. Evidence-informed policymaking (Gallo, 2017) in
climate policy is urgently needed. Over the past five to ten years, climate change communication
has emerged as an established field of study, yet there is no research available on the interaction
between climate science and policymaking. Is the supposed research-to-policy gap really existent
in practice? How is dialogue between both parties to be evaluated and how can it be improved?
This chapter gives a literature overview of the current status of climate change communication,
outlines the importance of effective science-to-policy communication for evidence-informed
climate policymaking, and suggests that dialogue has great potential for making science-policy
interaction more effective. Nevertheless, the chapter concludes with a critical reflection on the
complex climate policymaking process, recognizing that improved dialogue between scientists
and policymakers does not necessarily result in ideal, evidence-informed policymaking, as there
is no linear communicative relationship between only two groups of actors.
2.1. Climate Change Communication: State of Research
As an introduction to the field of climate science communication, I will first define the
term and then give an overview of the current status of research and literature. Moser (2016)
defines climate communication science as “the multi-disciplinary research activities underway
that contribute to a better social-scientific understanding of the climate communication process”
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
8
(Moser, 2016, p. 1). Over the past five to ten years, this field of study that draws from and serves
various disciplines has become methodologically more diverse and theoretically more contested,
marking a firm academic establishment, sophistication and growing professionalization of
climate communication research (p. 3). Moser (2016) gives a comprehensive overview of the
current plentitude of research literature on climate communication, stating that by now, there are
“longitudinal and comparative studies of changes in public perceptions, understanding and
opinions” (p. 3) of climate change, and a deepening understanding of different audiences and
subtopics, such as the use of visual imagery, or emotional response to climate change (p. 3).
Research has put greater focus on the affective and emotional side of climate change
conversation, as the issue of emotional reactance and psychological distancing seem to persist (p.
6). For instance, in 2016, a study found that in the United States, over ten percent, almost twice
as many as in Brazil, Canada, Germany, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United
Kingdom, did not believe in the reality of climate change (Hagen, 2016, p. 182). Hagen (2016)
found that the global public supports climate change policies in principle, but is less supportive
of policies that directly affect them (p. 163). Progress was made on what factors impact policy
support (Hagen, 2016), how to increase public support for climate policies, and on how to
communicate climate change more effectively to the public in the sense of transmitting a deeper
understanding of the issue as well as motivating individuals to take climate action (Moser, 2016,
p. 6). Within this context, a focus on framing, messaging and language has evolved (p. 6). For
instance, in “The Troubled Rhetoric and Communication of Climate Change” (2015), Eubanks
inquires public opinion on climate change and what ways or frames of argumentation can
influence public opinion. Similarly, Hagen (2016) studies global public perceptions of and
attitudes towards climate change. Scholars more frequently suggest the use of story-telling and
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
9
narrative formats to convey climate change (Moser, 2016, p. 6). Despite the experienced
devastating impacts of climate change in many world regions, addressing climate change
globally is not considered a high-priority issue in public discourse (Hagen, 2016, p. 161) and
scanning the world news agenda, it does also not seem to be on top of the list of priorities for
policymakers. Whereas the war metaphor of ‘fighting’ or ‘combating climate change’ is often
used in public discourse, wars and conflicts between peoples overshadow climate change on the
political agenda. Other research within the field of climate communication science has been
conducted on gaming and other interactive tools to make climate change and “an otherwise
abstract and difficult to imagine future” (Moser, 2016, p. 6) more accessible for different
audiences. Core climate change communication concerns that have been brought forward evolve
around available communication channels and forms (p. 6), communication mitigation and
adaptation (p. 7), mass mobilization (p. 8), long-term and deeper engagement (p. 9), and dialogic
forms of communication (p.8).
Persuading people to convert to a more sustainable lifestyle on the individual level is one
way to work towards sustaining our biosphere. Recently, there have been many new publications
in climate change communication literature focusing on how to develop communication
strategies and frame messages about climate change with the goal of informing and persuading
the public to take action in ‘combating’ climate change. For example, the work of the Yale
Climate Change Communication program is primarily dedicated to this cause. Besides this, the
Routledge Series “Studies in Environmental Communication and Media” reflects what an
increasingly central role this topic has taken in the scientific discourse on media and
communication studies today. However, even though policymakers play a critical role in the
global response to climate change, little research literature has been published on the
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
10
communication activities between climate research institutes and policymakers. In
“Communicating Climate Change” (2016), Priest dedicates long passages to the question how
climate science can be communicated more effectively to the general public. For instance,
“popular television science shows featuring science, […] science themes in journalism, film,
novels, entertainment television, magazines and other popular media” (p. 38) can help keep
science in the public mind.
2.2. Previously Unexplored: Climate Science Communication With Policymakers
The issue of how climate scientists can communicate more effectively towards
policymaking has not been addressed in research literature so far. The path for meaningful and
large-scale change in the world’s actions to solve the global climate crisis can only be laid with
respective policy. Recent publications on climate communication point out that there is a gap
between the knowledge and understanding that climate scientists hold and the level of
understanding that the public and policymakers generally have about climate change (Priest,
2016). In climate science communication literature, a frequently mentioned issue is this
communicative gap between research findings and policymaking, that is typical for science
communication in general. “It is emerging that researchers and policymakers do not speak to
each other as much as they should” (Warira et al., 2017, p. 382). In fact, referring to
policymaking in sub-Saharan Africa, Warira et al. (2017) state that relevant evidence provided
by researchers tends to not reach policymakers, and policymakers seem to not reach out to
research institutions for them to generate evidence that is relevant for policymaking (p. 383). The
authors emphasize the importance of effective communication for overcoming this “research-to-
policy gap” (p. 382): “The journey to getting research evidence into the hands of policymakers
and getting it considered for policy formulation requires constant effort characterized by
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
11
effective communication and strategic collaboration” (p. 392). The issue is however, that many
scientists have limited skills or little time to reach out to other audiences than their own scientific
community, both effectively and on a regular basis (Priest, 2016, p. 81). Hagen (2016) calls for
an improvement of communication programs to decrease the “gap between the recommendations
provided by the scientific community and the actual actions by the public and policy makers” (p.
174). Literature points out that particularly climate science is a very complex field with a high
level of uncertainty (Hagen, 2016).
As a knowledge-based political field, climate science and scientific services play a
central role in all phases of the political cycle: it is needed to define a political problem, to
formulate adequate action plans, to form consent and compromise, to implement and
institutionalize decisions, to evaluate effectiveness and efficiency of decisions, as well as to
determine the impact of programs on climatic happening (Simonis, 2017, p. 184). Simonis
(2017) puts emphasis on the need for specialized governance knowledge for climate governance
that enables actors to act strategically (p. 184). However, “simply a greater degree of contact
between scientists and policymakers may not be sufficient to lead to the effective translation of
knowledge into practical policies” (Caplan, 1979). In practice, some already existing efforts to
bridge this communication gap between climate scientists and the public in general confirm the
assumption that there is a need for more effective communication processes: for example,
science communicators such as Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson use their communication
skills to transmit scientific information to the wider public in form of entertaining shows as well
as books written for the general public. Moreover, climate change communicator Susan Joy
Hassol, founder of climatecommunication.org, works as an analyst and author, making complex
issues accessible specifically to policymakers and the public. Her organization supports scientists
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
12
in improving their communication and outreach, offering workshops in communication skills at
professional meetings and labs, and assistance in preparing accessible materials for non-
scientists.
2.3. Research Interest: Evidence-Informed Climate Policymaking Through Dialogue
Due to the urgency of the issue, climate scientists have the responsibility to make their
research findings about threats and opportunities in climate science more accessible to
policymakers, so that they can make use of their knowledge and design climate policies informed
by scientific facts. Policy decision-makers are increasingly recognizing the value of evidence in
formulating “sound, sustainable policies that will achieve their objectives” (Warira et al., 2017,
p. 383), and more than ever, they depend on scientific information in decision-making (Pielke
Jr., 2007, p. 30). “Evidence-informed policy making” (Warira et al., 2017, p. 383) is an approach
to formulation of policies that aims to ensure that in decision-making, policymakers consider the
best available evidence from research (p. 383). However, this approach is different from
evidence-based policy, in which “the use of evidence, often derived from randomized and
controlled processes, is applied to a well-defined policy question and is the sole or prime
determinant of a resultant decision” (Gallo, 2017, p. 243). Evidence-informed policy more
adequately addresses the range of public policy decision-making processes that rely upon
evidence, in that evidence is an important source, but not the only input to a formal policymaking
process (p. 243).
Despite the positive effect of evidence-informed policymaking at first glance, it has been
criticized for failing to address the complexity of some policy issues, certain areas of scientific
inquiry, and the non-linear policymaking process: for instance, the concept does not consider that
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
13
there are multiple forms of evidence that will be interpreted differently by different actors,
reflecting their values and ethics (p. 248). In relying on specific forms of evidence in the
policymaking process, other inputs should not be excluded, even other forms of evidence, “such
as qualitative research, observational data, and policy analysts’ and decision-makers’
experiences” (p. 248). Moreover, there are multiple factors such as expertise, experience, values
and ethics, influencing the policymaking process. Therefore, Gallo (2017) notes that it is useful
to think of multiple forms of rationality appropriate to different policymaking contexts and
situations, in which varying forms of evidence can perform different functions (p. 248). Hence, a
broader concept of evidence-informed policy based on “the best available evidence, subjected to
rigorous analysis, and the consideration of additional inputs such as experiential knowledge,
social insights, and policy expertise” (p. 248) is more appropriate to the complex policy context.
In such complex and dynamic relationships, communication plays a central role for the effective
transmission of knowledge influence on decision-making.
While policymakers have become increasingly interested in evidence-informed policy,
more researchers have also become concerned with finding ways to ensure that their evidence
reaches those who can use it for decision-making (Warira et al., 2017, p. 383). A challenge for
scientists exists in how to connect their activities of creating, interpreting, and providing
information to decision-makers in ways that foster good decisions that increase “the likelihood of
attaining desired outcomes” (Pielke Jr., 2007, p. 30). Without access to or understanding research
results and their implications, policymakers in any field are not in a position to “deliberate policy
issues from a well-informed standpoint” (Warira et al., 2017, p. 391). The question therefore
arises: how can climate scientists interact effectively with those outside the “ivory tower” (Priest,
2016, p. 82), specifically policymakers? Whereas there are many options for one-way
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
14
communication through social media or science blogs, how can more engaging two-way
communication be established? One option would be for climate scientists to act as advisors to
governments on emerging policy issues (p. 83). However, scientists who do become active and
communicate more visibly about their research results risk disapproval from other scientists, as
there is a general presumption that “serious scientists must [emphasis in original] be completely
dedicated to research, and if they are not, they may not be taken seriously as scientists” (Priest,
2016, p. 83). Yet, Priest argues that a new ethical norm is emerging, with the younger generation
of scientists seeming to be more open to communicating to and interacting with the public (p.
83). Concluding, in practice there are still a variety of constraints that might hinder climate
scientists from effectively engaging with policymakers: time constraints, lacking communication
skills, a lack of interest, and a concern about ethics (p. 84).
A scholar who thought intensively about the hegemonic understanding of scientists in our
society, and the role of science in decision-making, is Roger Pielke Jr. (2007). He observes that
the role of science in society is changing, with scientists being increasingly asked by
policymakers to contribute more directly to the needs of society (p. 31). Indeed, a second review
criterion focused on societal impact was adopted in 1998 by the U.S. National Science
Foundation, in addition to its traditional criterion focused on scientific excellence (Pielke Jr.,
2007, p. 30). In response to this call, Pielke Jr. (2007) notes that some scientists adopted a “much
more aggressive stance in political advocacy” (p. 32). The author argues though that ideally,
scientists should provide good options for decision-making, without politicizing their mode of
communication. He warns that when politicization overshadows considerations of policy, such
behavior can “also threaten effective decision-making” (p. 33). Scientists seem to be facing a
great challenge of meeting the expectations to fulfill the needs of society and decision-makers,
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
15
and at the same time continuing to meet expectations of their own scientific community to keep
up scientific excellence and uphold an objective, non-political, position. This field of interest has
recently further been touched by Kotcher et al. (2017), who investigated whether engagement in
advocacy hurts the credibility of scientists, specifically in the context of environmental
communication. A finding that this study builds on, is that “climate scientists advocating for
action broadly may not harm their credibility at all” (Kotcher et al., 2017, p. 426).
Interestingly, Kotcher et al. (2017) pose a broad question at the end of their work, even
more central for this study, and in line with the realization that simply a greater degree of contact
between scientists and policymakers may not be sufficient: what kind of communication can best
ensure optimal use of scientific knowledge in policy, without distorting the truth or endangering
the long-term credibility and integrity of scientists (p. 426)? This field of interest is precisely
where the present study connects to the existing research and the current status of the field of
climate science communication. The present study seeks to explore the occurrence and the
potential of dialogue, normatively defined following communication theory, for making science-
policy communication more effective. With dialogue often being perceived as the most ethical
form of communication (Lane & Bartlett, 2016, p. 4075), it is least likely to harm scientists’
credibility. Hence, in theory, dialogue has promising potential for bridging the supposed climate
science-policy gap.
Warira et al. (2017) suggest the following researcher-specific strategies to communicate
research evidence to policymakers in order to influence policy change and formulation:
“engagement with government committees (national councils), expert briefings to policymakers,
science policy cafés, and presentation of evidence in cabinets” (p. 391). To what extent are these
efforts to engage in dialogue taken in practice? The challenge moreover lies in synthesizing
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
16
complex research into “simple and concise messages” (Warira et al., 2017, p. 391), in order to
get research into policymaking spaces. The authors further note and confirm what Susan Joy
Hassol is already implementing in praxis: “training researchers on policy communications will
be useful” (p. 391), so that they are not only skilled in conducting research but also in effectively
engaging relevant audiences on their findings.
Effective communication of research evidence takes a central role for evidence-informed
policymaking, as it ensures that policymakers are not only passive recipients of research
evidence, but “active participants in the bid to bridge the research-to-policy gap” (Warira et al.,
2017, p. 391). This description of the necessary communication between researchers and
policymakers implies again that there is a need for two-way communication, particularly
dialogue, with the goal of mutual understanding. Dialogue can avoid the often-occurring problem
that policymakers don’t find research relevant to their decision-making (Warira et al., 2017, p.
391). Priest (2016) envisions a communication between scientists and non-scientist groups that
would be “more or less equal” without disrespecting either sides’ values and goals (p. 91). The
author observes a present “emphasis on discussion and dialogue” (p. 92) in the science
communication field. However, she relates this trend to interactions between scientists and non-
scientist citizens in general, not policymakers. Within this context, organized public deliberation
forums can provide “two-way opportunities for expert-nonexpert interaction” (Priest, 2016, p.
92), as well as science cafés, science festivals, interactive exhibits, demonstrations, new media,
and other forms of “deliberation” (p. 92). Can these formats and insights be applied to the
science-policy interaction? In what ways can the information flow and dialogic communication
between these two parties be improved?
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
17
In climate communication literature, the term “deficit-model” (Priest, 2016, p. 103) often
emerges, referring to the assumption that informing people about climate science would be
sufficient to persuade them to act against climate change. However, this kind of deficit thinking
falls short, as “social controversies about science rarely revolve around scientific fact
exclusively” (Priest, 2016, p. 103). It was proven that awareness and knowledge itself are
insufficiently motivating to take action (Moser, 2016, p. 7). Awareness of the complex
relationships between political interests and scientific arguments is crucial to understanding the
science-policy gap and to finding ways to bridge it.
In a review of literature from the past five years however, Moser (2016) observes a shift
from this deficit-model driven unidirectional communication to dialogic communication (p. 8).
The author states that “prevalent political cultures may be more or less receptive to dialogue and
deliberation” (p. 8). According to Moser (2016), a growing number of studies illustrates how
dialogic, deliberative processes can “open minds, deepen understanding, foster empathy, change
attitudes, and increase receptivity to policy alternatives” (p. 8). But there are no studies available
yet on the potential of dialogue specifically for the communication between climate science and
policymakers. Sean Schmitz, research associate at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability
Studies (IASS) in Potsdam, Germany, recently shared his personal experience with the science-
policy gap and stressed the importance of dialogue in a blog article for his institute: he found that
one great barrier between science and policy is language. Another challenge lies in remaining in
a neutral position as a scientist, without being political. Moreover, within interpersonal
communication, scientists might approach non-scientists with an internalized intellectual
superiority. Behind this background, the research associate emphasizes how crucial active and
responsible science communication is for the interaction between science and policy. He states
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
18
that in order for science-policy interaction to be successful and build long-term relationships, it
needs time, trust and effective communication between everyone involved. Finally, Schmitz calls
upon other scientists to take responsibility towards society by collaborating effectively and
actively engaging in dialogue with policymakers. In the end, dialogue between climate scientists
and policymakers benefits everyone (Schmitz, 2017).
The present study aims to fill this research gap on communication, specifically dialogue,
between climate researchers and climate policymakers, by empirically inquiring the form of
interactions taking place, and then identifying ways to improve communication practice based on
empirical research. To what extent is current communication between both parties truly
dialogical, following a normative definition from communication theory? If there is no
normative dialogue taking place, indicating that there is indeed a science-policy gap, how can
dialogue between climate science and policymaking be enhanced?
2.4. Actors Involved in Climate Policymaking: Implications for Research Focus
The concept of a “policy advisory system” (Mukherjee & Howlett, 2016) illustrates the
complexity of information flows and different sets of influence in climate policymaking. The
concept reveals that climate policies are not simply the result of one group of experts providing
knowledge that is then translated into policies by political decision-makers, as the term “deficit-
thinking” previously introduced implies. The concept of policy advisory systems moves away
from “undifferentiated ‘two-communities’ models of knowledge utilization in policymaking”
(Mukherjee & Howlett, 2016, p. 1). Mukherjee and Howlett (2016) differentiate between three
separate sets of actors that interact and communicate with policymakers across climate change
policy activities (see fig. 1): the epistemic community, which identifies policy problems;
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
19
instrument constituencies which define policy instruments; and advocacy coalitions which
compete to have a specific policy alternative adopted (p. 1).
Figure 1: Policy Advisory Systems. Author’s own illustration.
While acknowledging the real complexity of a multi-stakeholder policymaking process,
the present study narrows its research focus down to specifically inquiring communication
between climate scientists and policymakers; only members of the two first groups, epistemic
communities and instrument constituencies, are of interest for this study, as they include climate
scientists and other representatives from academia. Mukherjee and Howlett (2016) state that
scientists in epistemic communities are interested in “defining and prioritizing aspects of climate
change as a social problem and frame these dimensions in terms of policy goals that
policymakers can deliberate and act upon” (p.17). The authors further outline that climate
scientists transfer scientific knowledge about problems to decision-makers through reports,
academic papers and articles, and through participation in forums aimed at knowledge diffusion
such as multi-stakeholder policy workshops. At this point of the study, the term policymaker
must be clearly defined: according to the Oxford English dictionary, a policymaker is a “person
responsible for or involved in formulating policies, especially in politics” (“Policymaker”, n.d.).
It is important to consider that policy makers can have different functions and the term does not
describe a homogeneous group. In addition to this, the present study builds on the following
description of the term policymaking:
epistemic community
instrument constituencies
advocacy coalitions
policymakers
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
20
“Policymaking is a long-term and complex decision-making process that relies
on intertwined systems of actors and institutions involved in the generation of
knowledge and evidence, the transmission and uptake of evidence, the analysis
of evidence, and, ultimately, the making of decisions. Policymaking is part of a
distinct process that has, as its primary aim, the development and implementation
of policies, laws, rules, and regulations to govern the activities that fall within its
jurisdiction” (Gallo, 2017, p. 244).
In order to understand the complex “interrelationship of science, policy and politics”
(Pielke Jr., 2007, p. 22), the difference between policy and politics is outlined in the following. It
is important to note that while policymaking inevitably has politics, policy and politics are not
the same (p. 29). Pielke Jr. (2007) defines a policy as “simply a decision – a commitment to a
course of action” (p. 24) with broad implications. The purpose of policy decision-making is to
“reduce uncertainty about the future in a preferred direction” (p. 29). While we often think of
policy as a governmental decision, the term policy does not only apply to the governmental
context; policies are adopted by corporations, interest groups, school boards, as well as families
and individuals (p. 26). To differentiate it from a policy, politics is the process of bargaining,
negotiating and compromising when there is conflict over decision-making. We then engage in
political behavior in order to determine what party gets what, when, and how (p. 29) – “politics
is necessary to reach a consensus that allows action to occur” (p. 29). However, in a democratic
process, there is a need for policy in politics, because without policy, participation in processes
of decision-making and a provision of good alternatives for action available for decision-makers
are threatened.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
21
The focus of this study lies on policy, as it seeks to gather more information on the
transfer of scientific knowledge and the provision of policy alternatives in the interaction
between climate research institutes and policymakers, and to develop ways to enhance this
dialogue from a communication science perspective. For instance, one aspect of normative and
effective dialogue between climate science and policymaking could be to involve policymakers
at the early stages of research projects so that these can be focused on research areas that will be
suited to policymakers’ needs.
Implications of Policy Advisory Systems for the Research Focus of This Study
The new knowledge about policy advisory systems in policy studies literature indicates
that even if a supposed communication gap between climate science and policymakers is closed
by enhanced dialogue between both groups, policymakers might not take evidence-based
decisions on climate policy due to the influence of advocacy coalitions (see fig. 1). A recently
published handbook on global climate policy (Simonis, 2017) addresses the same issue, stating
that political systems and their actors are ‘caught’ in politics and therefore not capable of
considering and using information on possible future ecological threats provided by science in an
unfiltered way (p. 183). Geophysical, geochemical and geobiological changes due to
anthropogenic climate change are first transformed into ecological risks, then into political risks.
Only after this transformation, they can be perceived as possibly relevant by political actors and
make it on the political agenda (Simonis, 2017, p. 183). Similarly, Freedman (2008) argues that
policymaking can be seen as a “battleground in which contrasting political positions fight” (p. 3)
both for material advantage, for instance legislation favorable to particular economic or political
interests, and for ideological legitimation. He criticizes the common perception of policymaking
as a mechanical or administrative process, in which “faceless civil servants draft legislation on
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
22
the advice of ‘experts’ and ‘scientists’, in the interests of a ‘public’” (p. 3). Nevertheless, ideals
of policy development and implementation as being “executed in an informed but impartial
manner” that follows principles of objectivity and maximum technical ingenuity remain relevant
today (p. 2), and this study aims to contribute to learnings on how the field of climate
policymaking can come closer to its ideals.
Moreover, the social ecology for communicating climate science is made up of many
interdependent groups and organizations, including think tanks, media organizations,
government agencies, nonprofit groups, corporate entities, public relations firms, and scientific
organizations such as universities, research institutes and academic journals (Priest, 2016, p. 66).
Simonis (2017) furthermore emphasizes the important role of various institutions of scientific
political consulting, technological impact assessment, and climate impact research to transform
scientific observations into political risks (p. 184). In the political field of climate governance,
risk assessment on an international level is undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD).
To draw a conclusion, this study acknowledges that it does not capture the full
complexity of all actors and communicative dynamics involved in policymaking. It focuses on
the interaction between scientists and policymakers in order to reduce complexity in research and
narrow down the research topic. Future research can consider first, the three-group influential
system behind climate policy and research dialogic processes between all three groups and
policy decision-makers. Second, future research should inquire indirect communication
processes between climate science and policymaking, mediated through journalists or other
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
23
organizations. Nevertheless, the present study poses a first attempt to gather empirical
knowledge about the status of communication between climate science and policymakers and
concludes with practical recommendations for both sides to improve dialogue with each other.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
24
3. Dialogue As an Opportunity for Climate Science-Policy
Communication
In order to study the occurrence of dialogue in climate science-policy interaction, and
explore the potential of dialogue for creating a more efficient communication between both
parties, dialogue needs to be defined, with its underlying philosophy, and operationalized in
order to be measureable in practice. This chapter gives a brief background introduction on
theoretical concepts of dialogue, specifically in public relations, and outline in what way five
dialogic principles developed by Kent and Taylor (2002) will serve as a framework for
methodological operationalization in this study. The principles allow formulating research
questions at the end of this chapter, based on relevant communication theory, linking the present
study to theoretical groundwork in communication science.
3.1. What Is Dialogue?
Unfortunately, the contemporary use of the word dialogue tends to build on a definition
of it as simply “two-way communication that just spontaneously happens” (Russmann & Lane,
2016, p. 4036). Moreover, dialogue is often perceived as a process that can be instated through
external conditions such as including certain parties into the conversation. Additionally,
scientific and technocratic communication in the climate change debate – such as graphs, charts,
statistics, and projections – can have a hindering effect on the communication between science
and policy (Corner & Clarke, 2017, p. 52). However, dialogue is a very complex and
sophisticated concept, that is inextricably linked to interpersonal relationships (Russmann &
Lane, 2016, p. 4036). The concept of dialogue is connected to abstract, normative ideals; for
example, it “is seen as being based on trust, trustworthiness, respect, openness, reciprocity, and a
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
25
problem-solving mind-set, and is central to building mutual understanding and beneficial
relationships between participants/interactants/key publics” (p. 4035). With this, dialogue seems
to be a special and powerful mode of communication. Nevertheless, the reality of dialogue often
falls short of the ideals listed above (Russmann & Lane, 2016, p. 4035).
A first specific idea of the term can be gained by looking into the Oxford English
dictionary: It states that dialogue is “a discussion between two or more people or groups,
especially one directed towards exploration of a particular subject or resolution of a problem”
(“Dialogue”, n.d.). In addition to this, dialogue generally means a linguistic interaction based on
mutuality or reciprocity (Röttger et al., p. 169). Characteristic about dialogue is further the
change of roles between communicator and recipient. Dialogues are communication processes in
which the interlocutors are trying to influence each other through interrelated acts of
communicating and understanding (p. 169). Summarizing Bakhtin’s Theory of Dialogics (1992),
looking at relationships through the rhetorical lens, Littlejohn and Foss (2011) note: “dialogue
represents a contextualized, ongoing, and evolving subject matter that contributes to the constant
redefinition of the participants in the dialogue as well. The products and potentials of dialogue
are endless” (p. 240). This point is crucial to gaining a deeper level of understanding for what
dialogue is: in dialogue, each communicator is genuinely open to the possibilities that may be
suggested by the other; participants enrich each other and cocreate a future together, in the
interaction (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 240).
An open interaction like this engages participants “wholly and completely” (Littlejohn &
Foss, 2011, p. 240). Referring to Baxter’s dialogical theory of relationships (2004), Littlejohn
and Foss (2011) write that “dialogue is a coming together of diverse voices in a conversation” (p.
245) and similarly to Bakhtin, the authors summarize that Baxter sees “dialogues as
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
26
conversations that define and redefine relationships as they emerge in actual situations over
time” (p. 245).
Referencing philosopher Martin Buber’s thoughts on dialogue, Littlejohn and Foss
(2011) state that in good dialogue, participants honor themselves and the other, despite
substantial differences that may be present (p. 254). Taylor and Kent (2014) add that when Buber
described dialogue almost a century ago, “dialogue was not seen as a group or public concept,
but as a means for people to have more genuine and meaningful interactions” (p. 388). Dialogue
was generally understood as an interpersonal concept. This underlying philosophical idea of
fostering meaningful and genuine conversations between people is what makes dialogue so
promising for communication between climate researchers and policymakers.
The concept of an “invitational rhetoric” by Foss and Griffin (1995) describes a mode of
communication similar to dialogue: invitational rhetoric is an alternative definition of rhetoric
that suggests an equal, safe and respectful atmosphere of communication with the goal of mutual
understanding; it differs from traditional rhetoric as persuasion is not the goal but only a possible
effect of communication. In contrast to traditional rhetoric the mode of communication of an
invitational rhetoric simply offers perspectives, and equally gives the audience the chance to
offer their own perspectives. The traditional rhetor is striving for dominance and power over the
audience, and all his communicative efforts aim to support no other than his own perspective. An
important characteristic of invitational rhetoric is that it makes room for developing new ideas
and perspectives that neither the speaker nor the audience had before the communicative
interaction. Everyone involved does not only try to understand the perspective of the other, the
conversation also results in completely new thoughts (p. 143-156).
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
27
3.2. Dialogue in Public Relations Theory: an Unattainable Ideal?
Firstly, the term public relations needs to be properly introduced and defined; there are
many different prominent definitions within public relations theory. A well-established, classic
and simple social-scientific definition, suggested by Grunig and Hunt in 1984, serves as
sufficient foundation for this work: “Public Relations is the management of communication
between an organization and its publics” (p. 6). Behind this background, the present study aims
to inquire how climate research institutes (organizations) manage communication with
policymakers (one of its publics). To add up to Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) definition, the role of
public relations is “identifying, maintaining, and enhancing relationships between organizations
and stakeholders for the benefit of all involved” (Lane & Bartlett, 2016, p. 4075). Theunissen
and Wan Noordin (2012) criticize contemporary public relations practitioners who claim to
engage in dialogue, arguing that dialogue is an abstract and complex concept, rather than a
“simple two-way conversation” (p. 12), that most practitioners actually engage in. In response to
this, Lane and Bartlett (2016) note that dialogue can be defined as “two-way communication
uniquely distinguished from other forms by its inclusivity, respectfulness, and mutual
responsiveness of participants, leading to mutual understanding” (p. 4075). With this role of
dialogue, there are strong synergies with the role of public relations as stated above, and it is not
surprising that scholars recognized a “dialogic turn” (Lane & Bartlett, 2016, p. 4075) in public
relations literature over the past years.
Kent and Taylor’s Principles of Dialogue
In 2002, Kent and Taylor took the important step of theorizing dialogue within public
relations theory. They define dialogue as a communicative orientation and provide five “over-
arching tenets” (p. 21), dialogic principles that characterize dialogue, deduced from an extensive
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
28
literature review of the concept of dialogue in communication, public relations, philosophy, and
psychology (p. 24):
“Dialogue as an orientation includes five features: mutuality, or the recognition
of organization-public relationships; propinquity, or the temporality and
spontaneity of interactions with publics; empathy, or the supportiveness and
confirmation of public goals and interests; risk, or the willingness to interact with
individuals and publics on their own terms; and finally, commitment, or the
extent to which an organization gives itself over to dialogue, interpretation and
understanding in its interactions with publics.” (p. 24f.)
Despite the proposal of these five dialogic principles, the authors stress that dialogue “is
not a process or a series of steps” (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 24) one can follow. Dialogue is “a
product of ongoing communication and relationships” (p. 24). The authors note that some
overlap between the tenets naturally occurs, since dialogue is a communicative orientation and
not a set of rules (p. 25). It is important to note that Kent and Taylor (2002) identified these five
principles or characteristics of dialogue in relation to the contemporary practice of public
relations (Lane & Bartlett, 2016, p. 4076). The present study seeks to apply these dialogic
principles of public relations, described in more detail below, to the communication between
climate research institutes and climate policymakers.
Mutuality
The principle of mutuality in the context of dialogue means that both parties are
accommodating their position and collaborating for an outcome that benefits both,
acknowledging that organizations and publics are inextricably tied together and codependent
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
29
(Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 25; Lane & Bartlett, 2016, p. 4076). Lane and Bartlett (2016) add to
this that the outcome of dialogue is change and involves accommodation by both parties (p.
4076). Kent and Taylor (2002) emphasize that a collaborative orientation to communication,
across nations and cultures, is one of the central features of mutuality (p. 25). They state that
dialogue is not about winning, losing, or compromising, but about understanding the positions of
others while still advocating for their own positions vigorously (p. 25). Furthermore, Kent and
Taylor (2002) argue that participants in dialogic exchanges must work to maintain relationships
characterized by a “spirit of mutual equality” (p. 25). Parties should avoid exercising power or
superiority over the flow or direction of conversation, so everyone feels comfortable to make
their contributions without fear (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 25; Lane & Bartlett, 2016, p. 4076).
Propinquity
Propinquity is an orientation to a relationship, generally meaning that organizations
consult publics on matters that influence or affect them, and that publics are willing and able to
articulate their demands to organizations (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 26). For instance, a feature of
propinquity is that parties communicate about present issues before any decisions are made, so
that input from both parties can be taken into account (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 26; Lane &
Bartlett, 2016, p.). Kent and Taylor (2002) refer to this as “immediacy of presence” (p. 26), one
of three features of the “process of dialogic exchanges” (p. 26). Another feature is “temporal
flow” (p. 26), meaning that dialogic communication relates to an understanding of the past, the
present and has an eye toward a continued and shared future for all participants (p. 26).
Following Kent and Taylor (2002), the third feature of propinquity is engagement, referring to
the willingness of participants to be fully engaged in their local or global community.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
30
As implications of dialogic propinquity for public relations, Kent and Taylor (2002)
highlight that organizations consider the needs of publics. Organizations benefit from
propinquity in that they will be able to know in advance if publics disagree with the organization
on certain issues (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 26). However, Lane and Bartlett (2016) note that
whether this benefit results in organizations being better prepared to persuade dissidents or being
able to accommodate their objections is not specified (p. 4077).
Empathy
According to Kent and Taylor (2002), empathy is a feature of dialogue referring to “the
atmosphere of support and trust that must exist if dialogue is to succeed” (p. 27). Empathy is
further characterized by participants showing supportiveness, a communal orientation, and
demonstrating confirmation or acknowledgement of others (p. 27). In practice, this means for
example that meetings are open to all interested participants, dialogues take place in locations
easily accessible for everyone, and efforts are made to “facilitate mutual understanding” (Kent &
Taylor, 2002, p. 27). Whereas dialogue is, other than debate, not about the clash of ideas, Kent
and Taylor (2002) use the metaphor of a loving couple to illustrate that dialogue is more akin to a
conversation between “lovers where each has his or her own desires but seeks the other’s good”
(p. 27). Moreover, communal orientation means that organizations treat publics with collegiality
(p. 27). Finally, confirmation as a characteristic of empathy reveals itself in practice by the
acknowledgement of the voice of the other party “in spite of one’s ability to ignore it” (p. 27).
Confirmation is a precondition of dialogue, for trust between participants to be built (p. 28).
Concluding, empathy is a dialogic principle that helps to build trust and improves relationships
of organizations with publics.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
31
Risk
Any dialogue bares potential financial, psychological and relational risks for participants
(Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 28). For instance, dialogue can result in unpredictable, unanticipated
and perilous outcomes (p. 28). Kent and Taylor (2002) outline in detail that three features in
dialogic exchanges characterize the assumption of risk: vulnerability, emergent unanticipated
consequences, and a recognition of strange otherness (p. 28). Dialogue makes participants
vulnerable to manipulation or ridicule by other parties, because it involves disclosure of
(sensitive) information, beliefs and desires (p. 29). Recognition of strange otherness refers to the
acknowledgement and acceptance of others as being unique and valuable in their own right and
“because [emphasis in original] of the differences that they bring to dialogic exchanges” (Kent &
Taylor, 2002, p. 29). Lane and Bartlett (2016) summarize that dialogic risk is acceptable to
organizations (p. 4077), as it offers the reward of stronger organization-public relationships, by
creating understanding to minimize uncertainty and misunderstandings (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p.
29).
Commitment
These previous four principles of dialogue create the foundation for the final one:
commitment (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 29). It is built on foundations of three characteristics of
dialogic encounters: genuineness and authenticity, commitment to the conversation, and
commitment to interpretation (p. 29). To conclude, genuineness means that dialogue is honest
and forthright, and involves revealing one’s position; it means being truthful with one another to
come to mutually beneficial solutions (p. 29). Commitment to conversation then refers to the
attitude that conversations are held to foster mutual understanding and not to defeat one another
or to exploit weaknesses; it means the commitment to conversation itself with the purpose of
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
32
working toward common understanding (p. 29), without being driven by an agenda. Lastly,
commitment to interpretation includes making efforts to grasp the positions, beliefs, and values
of others before their positions can be evaluated (p. 29). This characteristic is based on the
realization that dialogue is “intersubjective” (p. 29), meaning that it requires interpretation and
understanding by everyone involved, and both parties attempt not only to understand but also to
appreciate the values and interests of the other (p. 30), in order to reach mutually satisfying
positions (Lane & Bartlett, 2016, p. 4078).
In communication science, dialogue is often perceived as an ethically superior and as the
ideal form of communication for an organization (Lane and Bartlett, 2016, p. 4075), most likely
because it gives everyone a voice and respects all opinions on an issue. Scholars and
practitioners have been using the term dialogue to describe “ethical and practical” (Kent &
Taylor, 2002, p. 21) approaches to communicating with publics. Dialogue is a rhetorical,
collaborative mode of communication – in other words, an orientation to fruitful and ethical
communication (Taylor & Kent, 2014, p. 390). More specifically, as dialogue “serves to mitigate
power relationships, values individual dignity and self worth, and tries to involve participants in
conversation and decision-making” (p. 388), it is considered one of the most ethical forms of
communication with high potential for public relations. Ever since Kent and Taylor (2002)
included an understanding of the term dialogue in the public relations vocabulary, it is
understood to be an effective mode of communication that allows organizations to build
relationships that serve both organizational and public interests (p. 21). An important
characteristic of dialogic communicators is that they do have their own goals and key messages,
but “individual or organizational goals are secondary to achieving understanding and being open
to new possibilities” (Taylor & Kent, 2014, p. 389). However, Theunissen and Wan Noordin
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
33
(2012) criticize public relations practice in that a focus on specific end results, that particularly
private and profit-driven organizations naturally often have, does not support the philosophy of
dialogue (p. 12), referring to Buber as introduced earlier.
A recent study by Lane and Bartlett (2016) resulted in the conclusion that public relations
practitioners do not and cannot undertake normative dialogue that consistently demonstrates
Kent and Taylor’s (2002) five dialogic principles (p. 4088), due to various constraints in
practice. Their study found that although each of the principles “did occur in the contemporary
practice of public relations, no examples from interviews demonstrated all of the principles – that
is, there were no examples of pure or normative dialogue in practice” (Lane & Bartlett, 2016, p.
4087). To the contrary, data showed that many attitudes and perceptions among practitioners
contrasted Kent and Taylor’s (2002) principles. The authors identified “situational factors” (Lane
& Bartlett, 2016, p. 4087) that challenged and constrained the principles’ implementation. They
therefore suggest developing a new approach to theorizing dialogue that is more pragmatic and
that more accurately reflects the reality of carrying out dialogue in public relations. For instance,
“models of pragmatic two-way communication demonstrating one or more dialogic principles”
(p. 4087) would strengthen the connection between theory and practice.
Nevertheless, dialogue appears to have great potential for climate research institutes to
engage in effective yet integer and ethical communication with policymakers: climate research
institutes aim to develop policy solutions and influence policymaking through their research, a
goal that at the same time serves public interest. Whereas for many private organizations,
strategic communication can be more effective than dialogic approaches, research institutes are
likely to benefit most from dialogue. It is of crucial importance for research institutes to
communicate research findings effectively towards the target audience of policymakers, while
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
34
also being truly open for requests and needs expressed by policymakers in return. Moreover,
dialogic communication has promising potential for climate research institutes as organizations,
as it “increases the likelihood that publics and organizations will better understand each other
and have ground rules for communication” (Kent and Taylor, 2002, p. 33). For organizations,
dialogue can lead to stronger public support, for example by policymakers, and enhance
reputation; for publics, for example policymakers, dialogue can mean a greater say in an
institute’s research operations, and increased satisfaction (p. 30). Kent and Taylor (2002) further
note that dialogue can help organizations foster more effective communication systems, but
scholars must provide concrete structures and not only “idealized descriptions of humane
communication” (p. 33). Dialogue needs to be pragmatic and accessible to the people who
practice it (p. 30).
3.3. Applying Dialogic Public Relations Theory to Science-Policy Interaction
In spite of Lane and Bartlett’s (2016) finding that the occurrence of normative dialogue in
public relations practice is not realistic, the present study holds on to the normative five dialogic
principles as a research framework, considering that “difficulty in implementing a normative
form of communication” is “no excuse for discounting or discarding it” (Lane & Bartlett, 2016,
p. 4089). As Lane and Bartlett (2016) note, Kent and Taylor’s (2002) idealized principles serve
as an aspirational model for public relations practice and therefore even such normative
conceptualizations and unattainable ideals of dialogue are relevant in theory and practice (p.
4089).
Lane and Bartlett (2016) lay the “foundations of a newly expanded theoretical
conceptualization of two-way communication in which dialogue is distinguished as the
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
35
normative ideal for pragmatic practice” (p. 4074). The present study ties in with this foundation
and aims to contribute to further developing this expanded theoretical conception with realistic,
more pragmatic recommendations to improve dialogue in communication practice. This study
applies the dialogic principles, as a research framework, to communication practice between
climate research institutes and policymakers, investigating to what extent their interactions can
be characterized as dialogical. Ultimately, the study aims to derive from the dialogic principles
(Kent & Taylor, 2002), as well as from empirically gathered data, practical recommendations for
climate research institutes and policymakers, to enhance dialogue and make communication in
both directions more effective.
Derivation of Research Questions
Lane and Bartlett’s (2016) work was one of the first published empirical studies
exploring the connection between normative dialogic theory and the lived reality of the practice
of dialogue in public relations (Russmann & Lane, 2016, p. 4036). Hence, this study on the
occurrence of dialogic principles in communication between climate research institutes and
policymakers poses another empirical contribution to a field that was previously widely
unexplored.
The five dialogic principles (Kent & Taylor, 2002) provide an analytical framework for
this research, guiding the articulation of the following research questions:
RQ1: To what extent does dialogue occur in communication between climate research institutes
and climate policymakers?
RQ1.1: Do climate research institutes and climate policymakers demonstrate the dialogic
principle of mutuality in their communication with each other? Why or why not?
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
36
RQ1.2: Do climate research institutes and climate policymakers demonstrate the dialogic
principle of propinquity in their communication with each other? Why or why not?
RQ1.3: Do climate research institutes and climate policymakers demonstrate the dialogic
principle of empathy in their communication with each other? Why or why not?
RQ1.4: Do climate research institutes and climate policymakers demonstrate the dialogic
principle of risk in their communication with each other? Why or why not?
RQ1.5: Do climate research institutes and climate policymakers demonstrate the dialogic
principle of commitment in their communication with each other? Why or why not?
By measuring dialogue, this research question aims to evaluate in what sense there is a
communicative science-policy gap, as described in theory (see chapter 2), between climate
scientists and policymakers. By also exploring reasons why or why not each of the dialogic
principles is demonstrated, factors that constrain or foster dialogue can be identified.
RQ2: What is the potential of dialogue for science-policy interaction?
The answer to this research question lies in the identification of constraining and facilitating
factors for dialogue in science-policy interaction. RQ2 seeks to inquire the realistic chances that
dialogue has to create more effective science-policy communication. Ultimately, practical
recommendations on how to enhance dialogue can be deduced from situational constraints and
facilitators.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
37
4. Analysis of Communication Between Climate Scientists and
Policymakers
The following outlines why a qualitative study design is a suitable approach to inquire the
research interest underlying this study. Then, both semi-structured expert interviews and the
qualitative content analysis are introduced as social-scientific methods and discussed with
regards to their suitability to answer the research questions formulated in chapter 3. Moreover,
the selection of expert interviewees is outlined and justified.
4.1. Presentation of Study Design
To assess the occurrence of dialogic principles in communication practice, data on
climate research institutes’ and policymakers’ experiences of implementing dialogue was
gathered. This information on experiences with dialogue was then analyzed through the
theoretical framework of the dialogic principles by Kent and Taylor (2002). To evaluate the
potential that dialogue has for the practice of science-policy communication, facilitating and
constraining factors were identified in interviewees’ responses. The approach to gathering and
interpreting data in this study was qualitative, as “discerning the characteristics of the principles
required identification of subjective perceptions” (Lane & Bartlett, 2016, p. 4079). To capture
people’s opinions, qualitative research is the most suited method, because qualitative methods
give researchers an in-depth understanding (Treadwell, 2014, p. 193) of a field of interest and
allow to capture “individual subjectivities” (p. 194). As a disadvantage of this qualitative
research approach, the present study offers insight and validity and reliability, but not necessarily
the possibility to generalize findings (Treadwell, 2014, p. 192).
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
38
Within this study, the analytical framework developed by Lane and Bartlett (2016) was
verified, adapted, and applied to another research subject: dialogue between climate science and
policy. With dialogue between climate scientists and policymakers being broadly unexplored, the
present research takes an exploratory approach to research with the application of qualitative
methods.
Selection of Expert Interviewees
In expert interviews as a special form of semi-structured interviews, the interviewee is
interesting in its function as an expert for specific fields (Mayer 2013, p. 38). With this, the term
expert is a relative one. Behind the background of the research interest of this study, and to make
the outcome of the study reliable, interviewees who met the criteria of being steeped into
research and policy, and science-policy engagement, were selected as experts. The approach to
the selection of interviewees was partly purposeful, selecting interviewees identified as experts
in climate science-policy engagement, and partly led by convenience, using the researchers
personal and professional network, as a form of nonprobability sampling (Treadwell, 2014, p.
135). Climate change is a global challenge that requires international solutions and collaboration
of all states. However, due to time and resource constraints within this Master’s thesis study and
the exploratory nature of the research, it was not possible to interview experts representing all
regions of the world. Still, two interviewees were selected from Germany, two of them working
in the U.S., and one working in Kenya – they all operate on a national, European or international
level within their work, bringing variety of data into this study. This selection of expert
interviewees was expected to provide insight into the occurrence of dialogue in different cultural
and political contexts, making research data more heterogeneous and to a limited extent,
reflecting the international environment that science-policy dialogue can take place in. The non-
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
39
representative form of sampling does not allow generalizable conclusions, but still provides
reliable and valid insights into the topic of study (Lane & Bartlett, 2016, p. 4079).
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Oli Brown, Dr. Erika von
Schneidemesser, Peter Iwanovicz and Prof. Hermann Ott. One unstructured interview was
conducted with Juan Chebly, as a preliminary exploration of the topic and in order to refine the
interview structure. All in-depth interviews ranged from 40 to 60 minutes, with the exception of
one interview of about 25 minutes, and interviews were conducted via video or audio call.
Brown is currently the coordinator for UNEP’s Disasters and Conflicts Subprogramme, based in
Nairobi, Kenya, and he previously worked for Chatham House, an international affairs think tank
in the UK, and for the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in Switzerland,
demonstrating experience with both social scientists and climate policymakers. Dr. von
Schneidemesser currently works as a Scientific Project Leader at the Institute for Advanced
Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam, Germany. Her research focuses on climate change and
air pollution, in combination with science-policy initiatives, “collaborating with city
governments and NGOs to inform decision-making” (IASS, n.d.). Relevant background
information is further that in 2011, Dr. von Schneidemesser was awarded an American
Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Technology Policy Fellowship to
work at the U.S. National Science Foundation, “where she honed her science-policy expertise”
(IASS, n.d.). Iwanovicz, currently the executive director of Environmental Advocates of New
York, has relevant experience not only in environmental advocacy but also in policymaking:
between 2007 and 2010, he served as the acting commissioner of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and as deputy secretary for the environment.
While working in state government, Iwanovicz was also the very first director of the New York
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
40
State Office of Climate Change. Prof. Ott, who currently holds the position of Senior Advisor
Global Sustainability and Welfare Strategies at Wuppertal Institute in Germany, was previously
also a member for the German Federal Parliament and worked at the German Foreign Office in
policy planning, having gained experience both in environment research and policymaking. At
Wuppertal Institute, his research focus lies on climate and environmental policy and law,
especially international law and politics. Finally, Chebly serves at the UN Environment
Programme as Lead Adviser on Partnerships and Outreach to the UN Assistant Secretary
General and as Head of the UN Environment Management Group. He designed and created a
novel online platform to collect broad input from members of civil society and academia
worldwide to enrich UN policy on environmental sustainability at the second UN Environment
Assembly.
In addition to personally conducted interviews, a panel discussion on the topic “Speaking
science to power: The importance of facts in decision-making” hosted by Columbia University’s
Earth Institute in New York City was attended. The four panelists and moderator were identified
as additional experts relevant for this study, and their discussion was analyzed through the same
framework of the content analysis as applied for analyzing the interviews. Panelists were
Thomas Jorling, Sara Law, Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, and Richard Moss, moderated by Steven
Cohen. Cohen is the Executive Director of the Earth Institute and Professor of Practice at the
School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. Moss previously worked as
Chairman of the Federal Advisory Committee for the National Climate Assessment and he is a
Visiting Senior Research Scientist at Columbia University. Dr. Lerner-Lam is the Deputy
Director of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, The Earth Institute, Columbia University. The
last panelist who made statements relevant for this study is Jorling, former Commissioner of the
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
41
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, former Associate Administrator of the
U.S. EPA, and former Minority Counsel, Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate.
4.2. Research Method Discussion: Semi-Structured Interviews and Qualitative Content Analysis
A suitable way to find out about attitudes, beliefs and personal experiences of people
while still focusing on specific aspects of interest in an interview, is to develop a rough structure
before conducting it. Semi-structured, rather conversational interviews give interviewees a
chance to describe things in their own words and speak freely, but also allow the interviewer to
ask additional and more specific follow-up questions that she or he seeks to find an answer to
(Treadwell, 2014, p. 197). Respectively, to gather empirical data I conducted individual semi-
structured interviews in order to allow the interviewees room to reveal their true feelings,
attitudes and experiences of dialogue with policymakers and respectively with scientists, but also
to allow the interviewer to move within the systematic frame of a prepared rough structure of
questions, so specific areas of interest would be addressed by interviewees. Participants were
encouraged to reflect on these experiences of dialogue, while the researcher subtly prompted
them to comment on aspects relating to any of the five principles by Kent and Taylor (2002).
This process may be seen as introducing bias into the research, but this was offset by formulating
a set of indicators and characteristics of the principles in practice in the code book (see appendix
C) for the qualitative content analysis, before interviews were conducted.
Interview questions operationalize the concept of dialogue based on the theoretical
framework by Kent and Talyor (2002). Depending on the qualitative impression of dialogic
principles applied in communication between research institutes and policymakers, conclusions
on the extent to which dialogue occurs could be drawn.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
42
Interviews were transcribed and transcripts were coded using MaxQDA software, to
facilitate interpretation. A preliminary codebook (see appendix C) with coding frames was
developed based on the five principles by Kent and Taylor (2002), reflecting the research and
interview questions, to guide data analysis. This method of a qualitative content analysis
(Mayring, 2015) was selected to systematically evaluate gathered qualitative data, guided by a
relevant theoretical concept, connecting theory and practice. To still keep the analysis flexible
and adapt it to the interviewees statements, the category definitions were continuously revised
throughout the analysis.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Semi-Structured Expert Interviews
Semi-structured interviews are an adequate method for the research interest of this study
as they allow to inquire a rather narrow research question (Przyborski & Wohlrab-Sahr, 2014, p.
127) in that they provide concrete statements on a research subject, but still allow for relatively
open communication to evolve. A semi-structured interview is a semi-standardized questioning
method (Wagner et al., 2008, p. 319) in which the conversation flows rather freely, meeting the
requirements of qualitative research to take a respectively open approach (Mayer, 2013, p. 37). A
particular advantage of semi-structured interviews is that they simply give the interview partner
impulses to talk, but ultimately, interviewees speak freely and formulate replies in their own
words. Another advantage of this method is that the interview structure serves as orientation and
ensures that essential aspects of the research questions are addressed.
On the other hand, there are potentially negative effects that can result from interviews in
general: personal and phone interviews bare the risk of showing effects of social desirability, or
that the interviewee is being influenced in his replies by subjectively perceived sympathy or
antipathy toward the interviewer. Open questions result in broad replies which makes the
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
43
analysis and evaluation rather complex (Lamnek, 2005, p. 341). It can be challenging to make
sense of relevant information and to systematically extract it from the wealth of statements
(Wagner et al., 2008, p. 331).
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Analysis and interpretation of data was an iterative process, searching for comments
made by interviewees that could be related to the characteristics and indicators previously
defined for the dialogic principles articulated by Kent and Taylor (2002). As previously
mentioned, each principle was coded as a category in MaxQDA software, and those segments
coded to the categories were examples of interviewees’ experiences that demonstrated the
occurrence of one or more dialogic principles. Most comments turned out to be coded to more
than one category, because they were interpreted as relating to more than one of the dialogic
principles. This confirms that the principles, as characteristics of dialogue, are all interconnected
and overlapping in their nature (see chapter 3). Comments that indicated communicative
behavior or attitudes contrary to Kent and Taylor’s (2002) dialogic principles were coded to the
respective categories as well, because this research sought to discover the reasons for occurring
or not occurring dialogic principles in practice, and to derive what these influential factors mean
for the practice of dialogue in climate science-policy interaction.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Qualitative Content Analysis
Qualitative content analysis as outlined by Mayring (2015) served as methodological
foundation for the application of the research method within this study, as his work “Qualitative
Content Analysis” (2015) in its first edition in 1983 posed the first method textbook of
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
44
qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz, 2014, p. 35), and as it is regarded a central guide on this
method within qualitative methods literature.
The general goal of this research method is the analysis of material that originates in any
kind of communication (Mayring, 2015, p. 11). It is important to note that qualitative content
analysis inquires material as part of a communication process (p. 12f.), in order to draw
conclusions regarding certain aspects of communication, such as the intentions of the sender.
This means, texts are always being interpreted within their context (p. 50). Evaluation and
coding of texts in qualitative content analysis are dependent on human understanding and
interpretation (Kuckartz, 2014, p. 39). Another important characteristic of qualitative content
analysis is that it is a method led or guided by theory (Mayring, 2015, p. 53), meaning in
analyzing a certain object it takes up on previous experiences of others with analyzing that same
object. In the case of this study, the analysis was guided by the dialogic principles by Taylor and
Kent (2002).
Qualitative content analysis primarily aims at discovering previously unknown
connections and with this, has a stronger exploratory character than quantitative content analysis
(Wagner et al., 2008, p. 335). Hence, qualitative content analysis serves less to test hypotheses
and theories, but rather to develop them (p. 335). This is one reason why qualitative content
analysis poses a suitable and appropriate method to find answers to the research questions of this
study. As outlined, dialogue is a highly complex and rather abstract communicative orientation
and there is little research available specifically on dialogue between climate science and
decision-makers in policy. Other than quantitative content analysis, the qualitative one is
perceived to meet the demands of inquiring the complexity, the depth of meaning, and the need
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
45
for interpretation of linguistic material, while at the same time operating systematically and
ideally remaining intersubjectively testable (Mayring, 2015, p. 10).
One of the main strengths of qualitative content analysis lies in this systematic processing
and interpreting of communicative material, following clear rules in the method procedure
(Wagner et al., 2008, p. 335), which even allow the processing of larger amounts of material
(Mayring, 2015, p. 131). First, the consistent systematic of the method reveals itself in this study
in the application of structuring as the technique of analysis (p. 67). This technique is useful to
analyze material with consideration of the criteria mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk and
commitment, deduced from the dialogic principles by Taylor and Kent (2002). As a sub form of
structuring, this study applies content structuring as analytical technique, as it allows to extract
and summarize material in relation to particular topics or content areas (Mayring, 2015, p. 99).
The systematics of qualitative content analysis is further manifested in the determination
of a concrete step-by-step model for the analysis (p. 50f.). Since content analysis is not a
standardized tool, but is always adapted to the concrete object of investigation and the material, a
definition of the separate steps of analysis and their order in form of a step-by-step model serves
as a fundamental basis for the implementation of this method (p. 50f.). Qualitative content
analysis should never be inflexible, but instead be aligned with the specific research subject (p.
131). The implementation of qualitative content analysis in this study broadly followed the step-
by-step model suggested by Mayring (2015, p. 104) and respectively proceeded as follows:
After the determination of content-analytical units, such as the smallest (coding unit) and
largest (context unit) text component which can be assessed and fall within one category, the
category system was developed. This analytical framework could be derived from Kent and
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
46
Taylor (2002). It was further adapted to the specific research interest of this work, for example
two categories were added in order to reveal situational factors of dialogue: ‘Constraints to
dialogue’, and ‘facilitators of dialogue’. The categories are a tool to concretely express the goals
of the analysis, they are an exact definition of what the analysis aims to measure (Brosius, Haas
& Koschel, 2012, p. 143): occurrence and potential of dialogue in science-policy interaction.
Through this categorization, qualitative content analysis leads to more exact results than free text
interpretations, which is another point supporting the application of the method in this study.
After all, communication content should be inquired and interpreted systematically and behind
the background of formulated research questions (see chapter 3) that were operationalized in
categories.
Next, another important preparatory step for the content analysis followed: the
development of a codebook (see appendix C). Throughout the coding process of the first
interview material as test runs, and in support of theoretical work preceding the research phase,
the researcher developed a codebook that then guided the final content analysis. This codebook
includes definitions of all categories, anchor examples and specific coding rules (Mayring, 2015,
p. 130; Kuckartz, 2014, p. 167f.). Anchor examples are segments in the material that are
exemplary for the classification to a particular category. In order to minimize difficulties in
separating what categories segments would be coded into during the implementation of the
analysis, coding rules were formulated in addition to category definitions. These rules allowed a
clear allocation of text components to one category (Mayring, 2015, p. 97). In the following
steps along the step-by-step model, material was scanned, relevant text passages were identified
and extracted, what simultaneously allowed a feedback process to rework and adapt the category
system and definitions if needed. By applying a category system with clearly defined categories
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
47
and coding rules, another strength of the qualitative content analysis as research method revealed
itself: the analysis becomes transparent and verifiable for others, it gives the procedure a certain
extent of intersubjectivity (p. 51). Every coding can be traced back to a tested rule, which
ensures that a second coder can implement the analysis in a similar manner and comes to the
same results (p. 51). Working with a category system allows for broad comparability of results
and with that, has a positive impact on reliability of research results (p. 52).
Ultimately, extracted segments from the interview material were translated if necessary,
paraphrased and summarized on a common level of abstraction (p. 71f.), to deduce statements
for the discussion of results. However, by summarizing, the material was generalized further and
further and with that, became more abstract. The fact that at the end of the content analysis, the
researcher generally works with paraphrases instead of originally coded text passages, poses a
methodological point of critique.
Qualitative content analysis as research method in social sciences bares further
weaknesses that will be acknowledged at this point of the study. Mayring (2015) mentions
objections regarding qualitative research in general, often raised in literature, for example its lack
of intersubjective verifiability or insufficient generalizability of results (p. 8). In the end, the
allocation of text passages to categories of the content analysis remains an interpretive task that
might allow interpretive arbitrariness (Lamnek, 2005, p. 512f.); inter-coder-reliability can be
problematic in practice, as interpretation is always influenced by knowledge and understanding
of the coder, even though the coding process is to a certain extent verifiable by content analytical
rules (Mayring, 2015, p. 124). As research for this study was conducted under constraints to time
and human resources, the researcher was the only coder and coding was not verified by another
coder.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
48
4.3. Operationalization of Research Questions
The interview structure (see appendix A) could, to a great extent, be deduced from the
dialogic principles (Taylor & Kent, 2002). Due to time constraints and geographical scattering of
interviewees from Germany to the U.S. and Kenya, all interviews were conducted via video or
audio calls. In order to minimize possible distance between interviewer and interviewee through
mediated conversation instead of in-person interviews, relevant questions of the interview
structure only start after a short introduction of the research project, clarification and examples of
the research interest and an entry question. This question meant to encourage the interviewee to
first talk about her- or himself and her or his responsibilities at their respective organization.
Following, interviewees were openly asked to talk about their experiences of communicating or
engaging with respectively the other party, climate research institutes or decision-makers in
policy. Throughout the evolving conversation, the interviewer chose to prompt more targeted and
detailed questions on the experiences with dialogue, and specifically the five dialogic principles
of mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk and commitment – but only if interviewees did not
already address these aspects while speaking freely. In this way, the research question on the
occurrence of dialogue in climate science-policy engagement was operationalized. If not
mentioned without being specifically asked for, interviewees were also be prompted to bring up
aspects that, in their opinion, facilitate or constrain a dialogic orientation of communication in
practice. If not already addressed, the next part of the interview asked rather directly for the
interviewee’s evaluation of science-policy interaction and the perception of a science-policy gap,
and sought to prompt suggestions on how to enhance dialogue between climate science and
policy.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
49
Finally, interviewees were given the opportunity to express any additional thoughts
regarding the overall topic of the interview.
Introduction of Categories for Interview Evaluation
Transcribed interviews were analyzed for the occurrence and the potential of dialogue in
the praxis of interaction between climate science and policymaking by using a category system.
This evaluation provided findings on the extent to which normative dialogue is taking place
between both parties and on the potential of such normative dialogue in communication practice
between climate scientists and policymakers. As previously outlined, categories were derived
from relevant communication theory, the dialogic principles by Taylor and Kent (2002), and
detailed definitions were modified with regards to the research subject. Additionally, the
categories ‘constraints to dialogue’ and ‘facilitators of dialogue’ were added, to systematically
extract statements made on the potential of dialogue within this context.
Two categories are introduced as examples below, for the full category system and code
book see appendix B and C:
Occurrence of Dialogue: Mutuality
Definition: Experiences with dialogue that was characterized by an orientation toward
collaboration for an outcome that benefits both, a spirit of mutual equality. Both parties
accommodated positions and acknowledged that they are codependent. Participants aimed at
understanding the other’s positions while still advocating for their own.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
50
Anchor examples: “the interface is like you work together”, “das ist ein Austausch auf
Augenhöhe”2, “wir haben Interessen, die haben Interessen, wir versuchen beide zu
berücksichtigen”3, “You have the scientists themselves, talking directly to policymakers and
explaining, why this report is important. And then you have policymakers sort of talking, too”
Coding rules: Only passages that somehow address the theme of equality and mutual
benefits. If it’s more about mutual understanding, code it to empathy or commitment.
Potential of Dialogue: Constraints to Dialogue
Definition: All statements addressing perceived constraints to, or aspects that challenge
dialogue between climate science and policy in practice.
Anchor examples: “people don’t really know what they should do or what benefit it
brings them”, “I have no time for this”, “on the side of science, people don’t really value
engaging in such work”, “in the U.S., climate change is only politics, there is no policy involved
at all, so you can say what you want, it doesn’t matter”.
Coding rules: not necessary.
2 Translated quotation: „it’s an exchange on an equal level“ 3 Translated quotation: „we have interests, they have interests, we try to consider both“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
51
5. Evaluation of Study Results:
Situational Occurrence of Dialogue and Opportunity to Increase
Its Potential for Science-Policy Interaction
In the following, qualitative results from the semi-structured expert interviews and the
content analysis that followed are presented and discussed by category. It may be noted though
that due to the qualitative nature of research data and the interconnectedness of all categories,
overlaps in content could not be entirely avoided and what is listed in one category may also in
part apply to another category.
5.1. Occurrence of Dialogue in Climate Science-Policy Interaction
The occurrence of dialogue in science-policy interaction was measured by looking for
comments that refer to the five dialogic principles by Taylor and Kent (2002). At the end of each
of the following sections a short paragraph will summarize results in response to the research
questions developed in chapter 3.
5.1.1. Mutuality
Referring to the coalition agreement signed by the new Federal German Government in
March 2018, Prof. Hermann Ott, Senior Advisor Global Sustainability and Welfare Strategies at
Wuppertal Institute, Germany, stated in the semi-structured interview:
“Of what use are the Council of Experts on Environmental issues, the German
Advisory Council on Global Change, the national Sustainability Advisory
Committee and so on – of what use are those expert councils, when they so
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
52
obviously have no influence at all on the planning of a new Federal German
Government?”4
This quotation reveals precisely the power relations that build the framework for any
exchange between climate science and policy in our political system, both in the U.S. and in
Germany: researchers have an expert status limited to advisory, whereas policymakers are the
ones holding decision-making power. With this foundational inequality in the relationship of
science (climate science) and policy, it is not surprising that many experiences described by the
experts interviewed for this study were lacking signs of mutuality and instead emphasized an
orientation of communication that was exclusive or dominated by economic and political
interests. Additionally, interviewees pointed out the increasing financial dependence of research
institutes on third-party funding.
The expert interviews brought to the surface that any meeting or conference between
climate researchers and decision-makers held within this broader structure of unequal power
relations is bound to constrain normative dialogue that allows for an orientation toward
collaboration for an outcome that benefits both, and an atmosphere of mutual equality. In
practice, there are very little opportunities for researchers to directly impact decision-making.
One example for an opportunity for scientists to influence decision-making was given by
Prof. Ott, who experienced working in a so-called “enquete commission”5, uniquely existent in
Germany and nowhere else, as he noted. These special working groups on varying topics
4 Original quotation: „Was nützen der Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen, der wissenschaftliche Wahlrat der Bundesregierung globale Umweltveränderungen, der nationale Nachhaltigkeitsbeirat und so weiter – was nützen diese Räte, wenn sie so offensichtlich überhaupt keinen Einfluss auf die Planung einer neuen Bundesregierung haben?“ 5 Original quotation: “Enquete-Kommission“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
53
received their name derived from the French word ‘enquête’, meaning investigation, examination
or exploration. Enquete commissions are only initiated when 25 percent of the German
Bundestag support it. Half of the people in enquete commissions are deputies, the other half are
“subject matter experts”6. Ott explained that what is unique about these commissions is that all
members, deputies and experts, have equal rights to vote for a decision. He emphasized that
“indeed, citizens have the same voting rights as deputies, regarding the outcome of the
commission”7. What he was indicating is that exclusively in this working group setting, scientists
or citizen experts in general that are usually not directly involved in policymaking are mutual
partners of a conversation with policymakers, they both have equal decision-making power. Ott
remembers working in an enquete commission on growth, wealth and quality of life as an
“extremely exciting experience, because it lay directly at the intersection of politics and
science”8.
Prof. Ott observed that in Germany, more than in the U.S., there are less and less funds
available for research institutes to conduct “program research”9 that financially allows institutes
for a certain amount of time to research into a specific direction, as opposed to project research
for a contracting authority. He considered this a very dangerous development and stated that
there should always be funding to bring forward research that is not necessarily beneficial for
governing parties. This increasing dependence on third-party funding constrains mutuality
between researchers and policymakers, because in project research, institutes investigate a topic
to provide information to the contracting authorities that provide funding, not collaborating with
6 Original quotation: “Experten, also Sachverständigen“ 7 Original quotation: „da haben tatsächlich Bürgerinnen und Bürger dieselben Abstimmungsrechte wie die Abgeordneten, was das Ergebnis der Kommission betrifft.“ 8 Original quotation: „eine äußerst spannende Erfahrung, weil das dann direkt an der Schnittstelle liegt zwischen Politik und Wissenschaft“ 9 Original quotation: „Programmforschung“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
54
those decision-makers for an outcome that benefits both, but primarily the funding policy side.
Oli Brown, Subprogramme Coordinator of UNEP’s Disasters and Conflicts Subprogramme,
confirmed this impression, stating that it is “the core role of science for policymaking” to “come
up with policy-relevant recommendations”, indicating that researchers informally have the status
of a service provider towards policymakers.
When asked about the background process of discussing law or policy alternatives,
negotiating resolutions at the United Nations Environment Assembly, Brown concluded that “it’s
a political process, it’s not a scientific process”. This highlights again the fact that ultimately,
scientists have no direct say in policy decisions. Brown stated that UN Environment tries “to
infuse it with as much science” as they can, but “it’s certainly not a scientists-led process”.
However, not all experiences that expert interviewees recalled indicated an absence of
mutuality in science-policy interaction. Talking about her experiences of dialogue with
policymakers, Dr. Erika von Schneidemesser, Scientific Project Leader at the Institute for
Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany, differentiated between two types of
interactions with different goals: one type are expert conversations that tend to be held on a
larger scale, involving city administrations, scientists, nongovernmental organizations and
institutions like the Federal Environment Agency or the European Commission; the other type
are rather collaborative exchanges on the local level within projects with city administrations.
Regarding the latter, she described that such project work is usually an “exchange on an equal
basis”10, the communication atmosphere is “very together” and characterized by “a back and
10 Original quotation: „ein Austausch auf Augenhöhe“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
55
forth”11. She noted that in those kinds of projects, “we have interests, they have interests, we try
to consider both”12.
Juan Chebly, lead adviser at the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP),
described the relationship between science and policy with similar words when he gave his
impression of the “science-policy interface” at UNEP: “the interface is like you work together”,
so that “your scientific process informs the decision-making”.
Dr. von Schneidemesser expressed a critical thought regarding the level of mutuality
between policymakers and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), that is worth noting here:
her impression is that in the U.S., NGOs are more engaged in advocacy than in Germany. She
feels that this is the reason why they are less included in “dialogues on an equal level” – because
they are “perceived as too extreme”13.
Finally, one should consider that whereas scientists might formally hold an unequal
position towards policymakers, they are the ones holding knowledge capital and with this, they
have a greater understanding of the scientific complexities around a policy issue, so they are
informally in a superior position towards decision-makers. Peter Iwanovicz, executive director of
Environmental Advocates of New York, stated that he has the impression that legislators “may
not feel comfortable” asking scientists “elementary questions” about a topic in the setting of “a
town hall”. But “in more private briefings, or more intimate settings”, they might be
“comfortable of exploring topics, and exposing themselves a little bit to the ignorance they might
11 Original quotation: „Das war sehr gemeinsam, also ein hin und her“ 12 Original quotation: „Wir haben Interessen, die haben Interessen, wir versuchen, beide zu berücksichtigen“ 13 Original quotation: „Dialoge auf Augenhöhe“, „die sind einfach als zu extrem angesehen“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
56
have around it or lack of knowledge base”. This comment reveals a lack of informal mutuality
from a policymakers’ perspective.
Another aspect addressed by interviewees was that scientists and policymakers are not
mutual interlocutors, regarding their right to state their opinion. Scientists are socially expected
to communicate in an objective and fact-led manner without advocating for a particular position,
whereas policymakers clearly represent different political directions and state their political
opinions. Prof. Ott remarked that today, “politicians face rather heavy pressure to justify”14
decisions with scientific findings but still, they are simply not expected to act as fact-based as
scientists are, because the idea of democracy is grounded on diversity of opinions.
Response to RQ1.1: Do climate research institutes and climate policymakers demonstrate the
dialogic principle of mutuality in their communication with each other? Why or why not?
To summarize, some experiences of dialogue described by interviewees working at
climate research institutes and in climate policymaking demonstrated the principle of mutuality
and collaboration for a mutually benefitting outcome. In an enquete commission experts and
policymakers held equal power over decision-making, in other project work participants felt like
they were working together, and examples accorded with the mutual respect and trust of Kent
and Taylor’s (2002) dialogic principle of mutuality. Other examples identified different
constraints to mutuality in the science-policy interaction: unequally distributed decision-making
power, financial dependency, and unequally distributed knowledge capital. These constraining
factors root in the political system and formal settings that science-policy conversations take
place in.
14 Original quotation: „der Rechtfertigungsdruck ist auch groß für Politik“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
57
5.1.2. Propinquity
Some interviewees talked about experiences of dialogue with scientists and policymakers
that were characterized by propinquity, in that there was an overlap of interests, science truly
informed policy before decisions were made, or in that researchers deliberately provided
information to legislators in a contextualized manner.
However, more experiences seemed to have been characterized by the opposite
orientation of communication: matters of discussion were primarily relevant for policymakers, as
funders of a research project, scientific information was used to back up political points or
directions of opinion that were already formed, and researchers showed a lack of sensibility to
(linguistically) contextualize scientific information within the policymaking process when
communicating it to an audience of decision-makers.
Iwanovicz reported that the researchers his team would talk to, during his time working
as leader of the first New York State Office of Climate Change at the Department of
Environmental Conservation, were “deliberately providing materials and put them in a context
that can be useful to us as regulators”. Nevertheless, Iwanovicz noted that not all researchers are
as engaged, and “often times researchers just do research and put it into the space without putting
context around it”. Additionally, Dr. von Schneidemesser noted that the connection between
science and policy is not as simple and clear for all topics, as it is for air quality, the topic she is
primarily working on. In line with this is Prof. Ott’s observation that there is room for
improvement in terms of integrating “process knowledge”15, about how legislation and
administration work, into the “transition cycle”. In his opinion, knowledge of how to best
15 Original quotation: „Prozesswissen“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
58
implement research results is not yet considered enough by researchers. For instance, he stated
that many reports are written in such a dry and uninspired manner that it is not surprising they
are disregarded by policymakers. Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, Deputy Director of Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, confirmed this impression of a lack
of contextualization abilities on the side of researchers:
“what’s missing in that, is the ability, almost linguistically, to get into the
decision- and policymaking process in ways that matter.”
Finally, Brown brought up the same point, stating that scientists need to look for
“mechanisms to be policy-relevant”, indicating that propinquity in this sense seems to be
problematic in practice: “there is that whole challenge of how you get credible science that
affects policymakers”.
Dr. Lerner-Lam went more into detail, saying that there is a particular “supply side issue”
when it comes to transmitting the process of “quantifying risk in ways that are understandable in
a decision-making context, in a way that uses the language that’s necessary for making a
decision”. Richard Moss, Visiting Senior Research Scientist at the Research Program on
Sustainability Policy and Management at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, agreed with this
point in that the scientific community has not effectively communicated what the “concept of
uncertainty” means, “particularly in the context of decision-making”.
As a counter example case of scientists communicating uncertainty more effectively in a
policymaking context, both Brown and Dr. Lerner-Lam mentioned the “degree of confidence”
that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) apparently uses, instead of
communicating levels of uncertainty. Brown explained that the degrees of confidence express the
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
59
“percentage of reliability of facts”, for example that the IPCC thinks a certain research finding
has a “95 percent confidence rate”. Brown evaluated this practice of using degrees of confidence
as “the goal standard” as it is “keeping it simple enough for policymakers to understand”, it is
“comprehensible” while also “balanced and credible”. Dr. Lerner-Lam similarly evaluated the
approach positively as “progress”. He stated that what is interesting for policymakers is further
“what contributed to the level of confidence” and “what remaining research needs to be done in
order to increase that level of confidence particularly with respect to a specific decision context”.
The important point here is that the IPCC as a central entity providing research to policymakers
seems to take efforts in creating greater propinquity when communicating with those in decision-
making, and this seems to be widely known in the field and appreciated.
Dr. von Schneidemesser reported an “overlap of interest”16 in topics that she collaborated
on with city administrations, and even on the European level, she stated having led conversations
that had value because they addressed topics that were “relevant for us, but also for decision-
makers, or politics’17. This indicates that for the IASS research institute, propinquity seems to be
an important criteria when planning events for science-policy engagement. Nevertheless, going
back to the concern raised by Prof. Ott regarding the decline of funding for research that is not
necessarily beneficial for governments indicates that unfortunately, research institutes are often
researching issues that might not matter to them as much as they matter to the contracting
authorities on the policy side, hence propinquity is probably generally low when it comes to
matters of discussion.
16 Original quotation: „Interessenüberschneidung“ 17 Original quotation: „für uns relevant sind, aber auch für Entscheidungsträger, oder Politik“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
60
Iwanovicz, working in environmental advocacy, stated that research helps his team to
“justify” their “points”. Prof. Ott shared the impression that motivation towards the use of
scientific findings varies from case to case, but that some ministries with a specific and unique
mission tend to “order specific expertise that, in case of doubt, support their opinions that they
already have anyways”18. He reported even more clearly that “many times, scientific expertise is
only used in retrospect, in order to approve certain decisions that had been made beforehand”19.
These experiences and observations by expert interviewees indicate that science and
policy interactions and knowledge exchange do not always occur before decisions are made, but
policymakers instead instrumentalize researchers to back up a political direction or opinion that
has already been formed. Nevertheless, Brown and Chebly talked about experiences at UNEP
that indicate that in some cases, policy is in fact derived from science and “knowledge of the
local people”, and dialogue with those different expert groups takes place before decisions are
made. For instance, Brown explained that prior to writing the Global Environmental Outlook
report that is signed off by member states, there is a preparatory phase that “involves hundreds of
scientists synthesizing a view of the world and the environmental challenges facing
policymakers”, implying that scientists contextualize their work in consideration of
policymakers’ interests, and indicating that there is a certain exchange taking place before the
final report is written and decisions are made.
18 Original quotation: „die dann bestimmte Expertisen für sich bestellen, die dann im Zweifelsfalle ihre Auffassungen unterstützen, die sie sowieso schon haben“ 19 Original quotation: “sehr häufig wissenschaftliche Expertise nur im Nachhinein genutzt wird, um bestimmte vorher getroffene Entscheidungen schon mal abzusegnen.“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
61
Response to RQ1.2: Do climate research institutes and climate policymakers demonstrate the
dialogic principle of propinquity in their communication with each other? Why or why not?
To summarize, segments coded to the propinquity category gave a mixed impression:
sometimes, propinquity did occur in experts’ experiences, sometimes examples demonstrated the
opposite of propinquity. Occurrence depended mainly on power relations, individual motivations
and intentions of members of the policymaking side and communicative abilities to contextualize
scientific knowledge on the side of the scientific community. A main reason why propinquity did
not appear to be a characteristic of what experts regarded as experiences with dialogue was the
fact that policymakers perceived dialogue with scientists as being used primarily to provide them
with information for their decision-making, sometimes even only to justify decisions made in
retrospect, whereas normative dialogue should be held on matters affecting both science and
policymaking, before decisions are made.
5.1.3. Empathy
“Investment in communication not to condescend to people, not to talk down to
people, but to explain it in a human way that makes sense in time scales and in
scales of imagination that people understand, is really important.” (Oli Brown)
This quote makes a point that was indicated by many of the experiences that interviewees
mentioned in the expert interviews: many scientists, and ultimately everyone, ends up “speaking
their own language at a degree of abstraction with just a number of acronyms and scientific
terms” that are not necessarily comprehensible to policymakers, as Brown stated. One has to
consider that some policymakers may not have a scientific or environmental background, but
they still have to negotiate text on biodiversity, on chemicals, on climate change, and terrorism at
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
62
the same time. Brown noted that they cannot be expected to have the expertise to manage all
these different issues. An impression expressed by Prof. Ott from his time as deputy adds to this
point that policymakers simply don’t have the time to look at complex contexts in detail because
their work load is very heavy. There is a lack of empathy from the scientific community for these
work circumstances that policymakers find themselves in, expressed in the use of complex
scientific language that policymakers often don’t understand or don’t have the time to properly
process in order to understand. Similarly, Thomas Jorling, former Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and former Vice President for
Environmental Affairs, International Paper Co., recalled a personal experience of attending
expert meetings with researchers:
“each time I went, the jargon changed, and it becomes so specialized, the only
people that can understand the language were the people involved in the scholarly
pursuit of climate change”.
He concluded that this deep involvement in scientists’ own language and
“perception of the issues” creates a barrier that results in the public and “non-scientific
public policy decision-makers” being left behind. This lack of empathy for the work of a
policymaker does not only occur in dialogue with scientists themselves, but is already
built into the formal setting that such dialogues are usually taking place in: at a town hall,
for instance, legislators “may not feel comfortable” to “ask stupid questions, or
elementary questions”, as Iwanovicz noted.
On the other side of the coin, some experiences recalled by interviewees demonstrated a
lack of empathy and collegiality for mutual understanding from the policymaking side. For
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
63
example, Jorling, participant in a panel discussion held at Columbia University, stated that when
communicating with individuals in decision-making who are deniers of anthropogenic climate
change, “there’s just no receptivity to the science-argument, or the science-case”, indicating that
with this lack of empathy for scientific findings and science itself, no efforts of engaging in
dialogue with those who deny anthropogenic climate change will be fruitful. Brown noted as
well, that “if they already made up their minds, then that information is not necessarily gonna
change it, regardless of how you communicate it”. The greatest barrier when communicating
with deniers of climate change seem to be their “ideology and religion”, according to Jorling. On
a broader scale, valid for the public in general, Jorling raised the concern that there seems to be a
“growing credibility gap in the process of science itself”. Brown made the observation that “the
value and the integrity of scientists themselves are not sufficiently respected […] for their
information not to be contested” and sometimes, “experts won’t be listened to”. This indicates a
general societal lack of empathy, affecting the science-policy dialogue on the part of the
policymaking community, in that communication doesn’t have a communal orientation,
policymakers are not necessarily aiming at mutual understanding and building trust, but instead
contesting scientists’ findings. Brown summed up this controversial dilemma currently evolving
in society, stating that “the scientific process is more important than it’s ever been, but it’s also
more questioned than it’s ever been”. He had the impression that “we’re moving away from fact-
based policymaking and it is being seen as being acceptable to state opinions as facts and facts as
opinions”.
Certainly, individual attitudes and values of those working in decision-making are a
central factor playing into the occurrence of empathy in the science-policy dialogue. Jorling
brought up an example from his personal experience to illustrate that individual politicians in
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
64
power have fundamentally different levels of empathy for researchers based on their personal
values, ultimately affecting dialogue: he remembered that when a report on smoking came out in
1964, a senator who represented the state of Kentucky reacted to it by looking for ways for
farmers to shift from tobacco to alternative crops, working in the agriculture committee and
“developing programs to assist in that transition”. He then contrasted this senator’s attitude
towards dealing with scientific findings to the attitude that drove a current senator’s actions.
Jorling explained that this senator was faced with a similar challenge, “which was coal”, but
instead of finding ways to help coal miners transition to a different economy, he chose to
discredit science, to “attack the science”. Jorling concluded that the main difference between
those individuals was “attitudinal”, hence a lack of empathetic understanding and supportiveness
for science rooted in values. Regarding the communication of scientific uncertainty, Jorling
added that “uncertainty is pervasive” and how decision-makers act under uncertainty is in the
end depending on “people’s values” as well. He concluded that using uncertainty as an excuse to
not make a decision goes back to someone not feeling that the “consequences of inaction” are
worse than the “consequences of action”; it goes back to someone’s values with respect to
uncertainty.
In the end, interviews revealed that there is “a massive divide between university worlds
and the world of policymakers”, as Brown phrased it. To a certain extent, this lack of mutual
understanding for each other is caused by a “natural rivalry”20 between both sides, as Prof. Ott
described, that makes finding a common basis a difficult endeavor: he had the impression that
politicians regard scientists as being “a little unworldly”, or sitting in their ivory tower, and “only
20 Original quotation: „natürliche Rivalität“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
65
attached to their own ideas with no link to reality and especially to political reality”21.
Respectively, he felt as if scientists think that those in politics are people who don’t stand up for
their beliefs and values, but are “bendable as straws in the wind”22. Behind this background,
Brown summarized the lack of empathy for each other on both the policy and the science side:
“There’s a bridge that needs to be built from both sides. For policymakers to
ensure that they respect the science and they base their policies on data. And for
scientists to help policymakers use that data in a way that it’s comprehensible.”
Interviewees also gave examples for positive experiences in which empathy on
either or both sides did occur, in the sense of collegially communicating with each other
and aiming at mutual understanding. One example would be the work in enquete
commissions as outlined for the mutuality category, another would be science-policy
interactions at UN Environment outlined for the propinquity category. Finally, Prof. Ott
noted that in the U.S., “science in general maintains a much more comprehensible
language”23 than in Germany, indicating that the level of empathy that scientists show
for policymakers in the choice of their language varies in different cultural contexts
from region to region.
Response to RQ1.3: Do climate research institutes and climate policymakers demonstrate the
dialogic principle of empathy in their communication with each other? Why or why not?
The dialogic principle of empathy as in Kent and Taylor (2002) was demonstrated in a
few examples of dialogue provided by expert interviewees. However, interviewees gave many
21 Original quotation: „etwas weltfremd, und nur ihren eigenen Vorstellungen verhaftet, ohne Bezug zur Realität und vor allem zur politischen Realität.“ 22 Original quotation: „biegsam wie die Strohhalme im Wind“ 23 Original quotation: „Wissenschaft insgesamt eine sehr viel verständlichere Sprache pflegt“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
66
examples that revealed a lack of empathy in the science community, particularly to simplify or
explain scientific language so that it is comprehensible for policymakers. Other examples
demonstrated a lack of empathetic understanding and receptivity for the science-case itself on the
side of policymakers who already set their minds on the path of denying anthropogenic climate
change. Interviewees warned that in the post-fact era we live in, scientific findings are
increasingly contested and undermined, and ultimately, whether a policymaker engages
empathetically with scientists or not goes back to their personal values and ideology. In the end,
there is a bridge to be built from both sides of the conversation to overcome the natural rivalry
between scientists and policymakers and turn it into a mutually understanding and collegial
relationship. More constraining factors tend to be: formal settings for science-policy interactions
and time pressure that does not allow policymakers to fully explore scientific contexts, scientists
using incomprehensible scientific jargon, a lack of receptivity to science itself, and prejudices
towards each other.
5.1.4. Risk
“In the U.S., climate change is simply just politics, there is practically no policy
involved. […] You can say what you want, but that ultimately doesn’t matter.”24
(Dr. Erika von Schneidemesser)
Speaking for her research institute IASS, Dr. von Schneidemesser stated that they are not
engaging in politics, what she defined as “negotiations”. Policy however, she referred to as “the
decision” about what makes sense in a specific context, and what “different decisions mean”25
24 Original quotation: “In den USA ist Klimawandel, das ist einfach nur politics, also da ist eigentlich überhaupt keine policy dabei. [...] Da kann man erzählen was man möchte, aber das ist eigentlich egal.“ 25 Original quotation: “die Entscheidung, ok, was macht hier Sinn, wir haben dieses Ziel, was heißen unterschiedliche Entscheidungen für dieses Ziel?”
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
67
for a specific goal, and while her institute stays away from politics she felt that for policy,
science can provide a lot of input. The scientist described the role of science towards
policymaking as providing a set of alternatives for policy decision-making and objectively
explaining their different effects on a target, without making subjective recommendations or
stating opinions. By remaining objective and simply providing alternatives for decision-making,
scientists take the risk of policymakers choosing an alternative that might not be in line with the
research institute’s or an individual scientist’s subjective agenda. By engaging with scientists,
being receptive and learning about alternative ways to achieve a policy objective, policymakers
also take a certain risk of taking an open approach to dialogue, potentially moving away from a
political position afterwards. However, in the entry quotation cited above, Dr. von
Schneidemesser voiced the impression that in the U.S., this dialogic aspect – policy, and the risk
that the conversation might result in unanticipated consequences – of the exchange between the
scientific community and decision-makers does not occur. She stated that as a researcher, it does
not really matter what you tell policymakers, because the conversation is dominated by power
and political or economic interests – politics. Her impression indicates that policymakers in the
U.S. seem to take a less open approach to climate change policy in general. Interestingly, Dr. von
Schneidemesser also noted during her interview that in the U.S., as she experienced it, there is
much more “advocacy” and “public demonstrations”, and less of a bringing together of different
aspects; she felt like the science-policy relationship is less balanced in the U.S. This can be
interpreted as the community of nongovernmental organizations and research institutes taking
less risk in their approach to communication as well, by advocating for certain positions instead
of remaining objective and providing alternatives to decision-making. In line with this is an
experience shared by Prof. Ott, who felt like society in the U.S. has a slightly more “liberal
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
68
understanding”26 of science, leading to more flat hierarchies and to “opinions counting as much
as scientific findings”27. This comment implies that scientists in the U.S. may communicate in a
more advocacy-driven, opinion-led manner than they do in Germany.
Altogether, the in-depth interviews revealed a very difficult balance act that the scientific
community seems to face, both in the U.S. and in Germany: engaging in science communication
without engaging in advocacy; remaining neutral and providing alternatives while still
representing the agenda of a research institute; risking the credibility and reputation of science
but not risking unanticipated consequences of a science-policy interaction, or remaining
credibility and scientific neutrality but risking that decisions will not reflect an institute’s
interests.
Dr. von Schneidemesser explained carefully how important it is to her personally, to
remain neutral as a scientist: she would never communicate her personal opinion, but instead
outline what different studies mean for the application of a certain policy option, such as driving
bans or emission zones for the protection of health, and what other ways there are that would
have the same effect on air quality. She concluded: “maybe for me personally, that matters, but
from the perspective of science it doesn’t matter”28. It’s interesting that both Dr. von
Schneidemesser and Prof. Ott referenced Roger Pielke, Jr.’s book “The Honest Broker” (2007),
in which he defines four different types of scientists and their different approaches to
communicating with policymakers. Both expressed their support for a societal perception of
scientists in line with the fourth type of scientist that Pielke, Jr. (2007) named the “honest
broker”, who is interested in scientific findings and genuinely feels responsible for a topic, but
26 Original quotation: „liberalere Auffasung“ 27 Original quotation: “Meinungen so viel gelten, wie wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse“ 28 Original quotation: das ist mir vielleicht persönlich nicht egal, aber von Seite der Wissenschaft schon egal“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
69
who does not use scientific results as a tool; instead, he sincerely pursues to “increase freedom of
decision”29, as Prof. Ott explained, and to enable policymakers to escape from a lack of
alternatives. Both interviewees, Dr. von Schneidemesser and Prof. Ott, seemed to apply this
understanding of their profession to their own work ethics. Prof. Ott described societal
acceptance of this “honest broker” understanding of a scientist as an “achievement of
civilization”30 that should be strengthened. He called for society to move away from an
understanding of a purely objective scientist who does not have, and is not allowed to have any
interest at all. Respectively, Dr. von Schneidemesser acknowledged that regardless of her
personal, objective, approach to projects, that should not be generalized for her institute. She
stated:
“we are named Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, we have a bias. […]
We attempt to support processes that support transformative ways to
sustainability. So of course, we have an agenda.”31
Interviews revealed that scientists in Germany seem to struggle with stronger societal
pressure to be objective than scientists in the U.S., due to a more liberal understanding of science
that is probably more accepting of the “honest broker” type of scientist. Hence, cultural
differences are one of the factors affecting the level of risk that scientists are taking in engaging
with policymakers.
29 Original quotation: “die Entscheidungsfreiheit zu erhöhen“ 30 Original quotation: “zivilisatorische Errungenschaft“ 31 Original quotation: “wir heißen ja auch Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, wir haben ein bias. [...] Wir versuchen, Prozesse zu unterstützen, die die transformativen Wege zur Nachhaligkeit unterstützen. Also klar, wir haben eine Agenda.“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
70
This balance act between science communication and advocacy gained more clarity when
talking to Brown, who differentiated between two different kinds of advocacy that scientists can
engage in: one, he described as selectively picking a point of information and “pushing an
argument often a little bit beyond the facts”, “past where it needs to go”, as “part of a negotiative
strategy”. The other, he described as advocating “for the importance of science” and for “why
science should be part of policymaking”, “why you want to have facts-based decision-making”.
With this differentiation, Brown aimed to point out that scientists, in his opinion, should not
engage in the first kind of advocacy but only in the second one, in order “maintain the credibility
of their scientific process”. By stating that scientists should “be very cautious”, he implied that
communication with policymakers is indeed a very sensitive and risky matter for scientists.
Brown continued, voicing that he thinks it is “important for scientists to carry on being two-
handed”. What he meant by this metaphor is again exactly what the “honest broker”
understanding of a scientist is about: scientists should talk about things in their entirety, they
should say “on the one hand this, on the other hand this”, to maintain credibility.
Iwanovicz confirmed this social pressure that scientists might feel within their own
scientific community and from the public at large, to remain objective. He had the impression
that “often times, they just feel like they don’t wanna get involved, and they don’t wanna be
perceived as political”. Dr. von Schneidemesser as well reported of a case in which she and her
team did not want to work on a certain question with a city administration because it “got very
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
71
political” and would have “crossed a line”32 for them. She added that she personally always tries
to “draw a line, where they don’t make specific political recommendations”33.
Experiences recalled in expert interviews further indicated that the scientific community
at large is taking a certain risk of the conversation resulting not in their favor and of even science
itself being undermined, when communicating scientific uncertainty. Iwanovicz said that from
his experience, there is “an honest dialogue” between a regulator and the science when it comes
to uncertainty and whether there is “a safe threshold or not”. Prof. Ott acknowledged the
challenge that scientists are facing when communicating uncertainty to decision-makers: he
stated that because climate science works with probabilities, in many cases, what scientists
formulate as messages is not really perceived as “exact science”34 on the recipients’ side of
communication. Confirming this impression, Steven Cohen, Executive Director of Columbia
University’s Earth Institute, mentioned that “when uncertainty gets communicated to decision-
makers […] it seems to undermine in some peoples’ mind the science itself”. Dr. Lerner-Lam
added, that while science “should be producing uncertainty”, that is often “not well
communicated”. As an approach to communicating scientific risk better, and with that reducing
risk of science being undermined by decision-makers, interviewees again referred to the IPCC’s
way of communicating levels of confidence. However, the scientific community still inherently
takes a risk of dialogue resulting in unanticipated consequences whenever openly
communicating that a scientific finding does not have 100 percent certainty.
32 Original quotation: „das wird sehr politisch, und das überschreitet eine Grenze für uns“ 33 Original quotation: “ich versuche immer eine Grenze zu machen, wo wir nicht bestimmte Politikempfehlungen machen” 34 Original quotation: „exakte Wissenschaft“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
72
Some of the examples that interviewees gave implied that on the policy side, decision-
makers sometimes take no risk to avoid that dialogue with scientists would have unanticipated
consequences. Instead, political and economic interests tend to dominate the conversation: Prof.
Ott recalled an experience from his time as a deputy, stating that his pledge for all experts and
parliamentarians to each sit together in the “Enquete-Kommission” he was participating in, but
still ordered by party, was immediately rejected. Instead, experts each sat with their respective
fractions. Rejecting an attempt to make the conversation more of an overall science-policy
conversation across parties and fractions, and less of a political one, can be interpreted as
policymakers taking very low risk for dialogue to end in unanticipated consequences. He stated
that experts were only listened to within the context of the political interest of a party, but not
superordinate to political interests.
Iwanovicz brought up an example showcasing that it is hard to get policymakers out of a
certain position, even when scientific findings indicate with a 98 percent certainty that “climate
change is happening and humans are causing it”, because decision-makers are dependent on
voters and funding. He noted that if they feel like “big oil or big coal” - “big polluters” – want
them to sustain these industries, decision-makers are going to “gravitate” to that “small two
percent and hang on for their life”. This impression confirms again the prioritization of economic
and political interests on the policy side over an open approach to dialogue with scientists.
Iwanovicz referred to yet another example from the time of the Obama administration that makes
this point even clearer: he recalled that in the summer of 2011, the Obama administration had to
make a decision about the health standard for smog in the air. To Iwanovicz and his team’s
surprise, “Obama decided not to make a decision, but this decision was couched in economics”.
The interviewee explained that his team thought that “you’re not supposed to take economics
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
73
into account” when making a decision about whether the air we breathe is going to make us sick
or not. In his understanding, “economics come into play” after that decision, when thinking
about “how do you then get companies to comply with meeting the standard? Concluding this
point, policymakers are certainly not always pressured by political and economic interests to the
extent described in these examples, but it is unfortunately the nature of our political system,
particularly in the U.S. where corporations and other private actors heavily contribute to
financing of political parties, to act in a way that will bring broad support from the public and
funders, and not in a way that gains approval from the scientific community.
Finally, Brown noted that even though UN Environment is trying to increase diversity of
voices when working on the Global Environmental Outlook report with scientists, he felt like
there tends to be a “bias towards English-speaking researchers”. Furthermore, as contributing to
this report with the UN as a scientist is based on volunteering, “it tends to bias towards people
who have sufficiently stable jobs, tenured positions, […] to be willing to volunteer their time to
do […] a long, two or three year research process, part-time”. With that, he concluded, “you
already have a group of scientists who already inherently believe in the mission of UN
Environment, so you’re not necessarily getting that many contrary voices”. This is another factor
to be aware of when analyzing the occurrence of risk; with this inherent bias towards supporting
voices involved in the creation of central UN Environment reports, the risk for the report to
result in unanticipated conclusions decreases.
Response to RQ1.4: Do climate research institutes and climate policymakers demonstrate the
dialogic principle of risk in their communication with each other? Why or why not?
Experiences provided by interviewees demonstrated that the scientific community in
general is taking greater risk for a conversation with policymakers to result in unanticipated
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
74
consequences than policymakers are taking when engaging with scientists. The contemporary
societal understanding of a scientist expects them to communicate objectively, to transparently
communicate scientific uncertainty, and to provide alternatives to decision-makers without
advocating for a subjective opinion. Opposed to this, the principle of risk as a beneficial
characteristic of dialogue was not clearly demonstrated in examples provided by interviewees.
Examples indicated that policymakers do represent and stand up for a political direction and
opinion, they tend to only use scientific findings to justify decisions made beforehand, and
decision-makers seemed not to be receptive to scientists’ input superordinate to a particular
political context. Constraining factors for policymakers to truly take risk by taking an open
approach to dialogue with scientists were economic and political interests that ultimately guide
their actions.
5.1.5. Commitment
“Good policy is only gonna benefit from scientists getting more engaged. […]
there’s a clear need, […] for researchers, scientists, and institutions, to understand
that public policy is gonna be shaped much better if they get engaged”. (Peter
Iwanovicz)
This quotation represents a point addressed by many of the expert interviewees: a
lack of engagement with policymakers on the side of scientists. The interviews brought to
the surface that for various reasons, the scientific community does not seem to show
strong commitment to the conversation with decision-makers itself. Jorling stated that
“engaging with public officials on the part of the scientific community is very important
and it should not be withdrawn from”, indicating that the reality seems to be precisely
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
75
that researchers are withdrawing from engagement with policymakers. Dr. von
Schneidemesser, a scientist herself, confirmed this impression saying that there is a lot of
expertise and knowledge “where much more could be done”35. In line with that,
Iwanovicz noted that there is a need for “much more direct engagement for people doing
[..] research to be able to impact the decision-makers’ habitudes”.
Dr. von Schneidemesser listed a few reasons for this lack of engagement on the
science side, ranging from time constraints, over not seeing how scientific work relates to
a policy context, to a lack of appreciation for engagement with policy within the
scientific community. Dr. von Schneidemesser stated that “at least on the side of science,
such work is not really valued”36. She felt that scientists sometimes just don’t really know
what they should do, regarding the engagement with policymakers, and what benefit it
has for them. The expert explained that many researchers feel like for their career, it is
primarily important to publish in order to get a tenure, and everything beyond that is
secondary. Similarly, Iwanovicz, in his statement above indicated that scientists may
simply not see the value of their work for public policymaking. Moreover, Dr. von
Schneidemesser described that press and communication departments at most universities
and research institutes are too small and centrally organized to make sure that students
engage the public with their findings, or for researchers to engage with their
communications department. Prof. Ott outlined that from the other institutes he knows,
the trend seems to go towards stronger acknowledgement of the importance of
communication and public relations departments in research institutes. Nevertheless, he
35 Original quotation: „wo viel mehr gemacht werden könnte“ 36 Original quotation: „wenigstens von Seite der Wissenschaft nicht viel Wert darauf gelegt wird, solche Arbeit zu machen“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
76
saw room for improvement when it comes to processing and preparing studies themselves
with respect to the needs of policymakers.
Prof. Ott noted that lack of engagement is not a generalizable problem, as the
commitment to engage with each other, on both sides, depends on the function one holds
in policymaking and respectively at a research institute, and it furthermore strongly
depends on personal character traits. “There are scientists who enjoy being in the
spotlight, being proactive”37 and there are others who don’t enjoy it as much and “prefer
staying in the background”38. Depending on this personal motivation to approach
policymakers, scientists show high or low commitment to the conversation with people in
decision-making.
Besides these impressions of a lack of engagement and commitment on the
science side, Dr. von Schneidemesser also brought up the example of expert
conversations her institute has organized or been involved with, that have no clear
objective but simply serve the purpose of an exchange. She stated that “it is [..] often a
very interesting conversation, but much more difficult to quantify what the result is”39.
This experience indicates that on the side of her institute, and maybe even on both sides
participating in such exchanges, commitment to the conversation itself seems to be high.
Moreover, interviewees implied that the scientific community seems to communicate
genuinely honest towards policymakers, as phrased by Iwanovicz: “I think it’s an honest
dialogue […] between a regulator […] and the science”.
37 Original quotation: „es gibt Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler, die sehr, sehr gerne im Rampenlicht stehen, nach vorne gehen“ 38 Original quotation: “die bleiben eher im Hintergrund“ 39 Original quotation: “Es ist sehr oft ein sehr interessantes Gespräch, aber viel schwieriger, da zu quantifizieren, was eigentlich raus gekommen ist.“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
77
Chebly and Brown described experiences indicating high commitment to the
conversation with scientists by policymakers, specifically at UN Environment. First of
all, Chebly stated that “UNEP has been very keen on bridging this gap”, referring to the
science-policy gap and implying high commitment to dialogue. Secondly, he explained
that UNEP is a “normative institution which is led by science”: it develops norms
depending on the scientific findings received. Brown stated that UN Environment “sets
itself up as a science-policy organization”, and that it is “trying to interpret the science for
policymakers”. He furthermore said that UN Environment is “creating that mechanism
for that science-policy dialogue”. These statements indicate genuine interest on the side
of UNEP to make science-based decisions. Brown even stated that “fact-based
assessments of environmental challenges, and fact-based package solutions for what
countries can do to address those challenges” are “a really important part of what we do”.
Beyond this, Chebly referred to the example of the UN Environment Assembly, where
new international laws about the environment are created, and the “special space” at this
conference, dedicated to direct exchange for mutual understanding between science and
policy: “you have the scientists themselves, talking directly to policymakers and
explaining, why this report is important.” Respectively, policymakers explain why they
“implemented this resolution”, and what particular issue raised by scientists they’re
hoping to address. Chebly emphasized however, that UNEP does not only value the
knowledge contribution of scientists but also “knowledge of the local people”. He
explained that depending on the issue, there can be varying degrees and varying
processes of science informing policy. This underlines the commitment at UNEP to the
conversation with all knowledge providers and experts on an issue, not limited to
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
78
scientists. Finally, Brown pointed out that the fact that “every single member, every
single country in the world has signed up to being a part to UN environment […] in itself
is a sign of commitment” by governments to engaging in dialogue with science.
However, he acknowledged the fact that within those different governments, there are
people who are more or less committed to the environment and it remains a challenge for
those ministers attending the Assembly, who are already “pro acting on the environment”
to get traction within their own governments. Hence, the commitment of member states
to UN Environment itself is a sign of commitment to science-policy dialogue from the
policy side as a worldwide community, but this commitment cannot be generalized for
every member of that community of policymakers.
This point leads to a key statement made by Prof. Ott, regarding communication
and outreach by scientists towards policymakers:
“I would say qualitatively, there is a lot of room for improvement.
However, that would suppose real willingness on the political side to
process scientific findings as the guiding basis for policy. In most cases,
that is not the case, instead policymakers are driven by interests defined by
either groups of voters, that are sought to be reached, or lobby groups that
are sought to be satisfied, those who have money to fund future electoral
campaigns, and so on.”40
40 Original quotation: “Und ich würde sagen, qualitativ ließe sich einiges verbessern. Aber das würde eben voraussetzen, einen echten Willen auf Seiten der Politik, die wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse dann auch als handlungsleitend zu nehmen. Das ist in den allermeisten Fällen nicht so, sondern das ist interessengetrieben, die Interessen werden definiert durch entweder Wählergruppen, die man erreichen will, oder Lobbygruppen, die man zufriedenstellen will, solche die Geld haben, einem dann in Zukunft den Wahlkampf zu finanzieren und so weiter.“
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
79
This personal impression expressed by Prof. Ott indicates that most times,
commitment to genuinely making science-based decisions is low due to domination of
political and financial interests over policymakers’ actions. With this, it becomes clear
that even if policymakers have genuine willingness to put the planet first, their hands are
tied to political and economic self-interests, due to the way political parties are funded
and democratically elected.
Response to RQ1.5: Do climate research institutes and climate policymakers demonstrate the
dialogic principle of commitment in their communication with each other? Why or why not?
Examples provided by interviewees strongly suggested a lack of engagement with
policymakers on the side of scientists. Demonstration of the dialogic principle of commitment to
the conversation itself was very limited. Respectively, policymakers seemed to show no real
willingness to genuinely make decisions based on science due to their financial and political
dependency on funders and voters. However, other examples revealed that particularly within the
context of UN Environment, commitment to genuine, honest conversations with each other and
to truly making science-based policy decisions was high. Reasons why the scientific community
is not engaging enough ranged from a lack of benefits or value of such work within their own
community and profession, over time constraints and a lack of qualifications for effective
communication, to not seeing how their scientific work relates to policy issues and what value it
has for public policymaking.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
80
Response to RQ1: To what extent does dialogue occur in communication between climate
research institutes and climate policymakers?
Normative dialogue demonstrating all five dialogic principles by Taylor and Kent (2002)
– mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk, and commitment – was rarely found in examples
provided by the interviewees. All interviewees confirmed the existence of a science-policy gap in
one way or another: a lack of direct influence on decision-making for scientists, qualitatively
poor communication by scientists, a lack of engagement, or a lack of understanding and
receptivity for science. Many challenges and constraints to implementing these principles
highlight that dialogue is indeed not simply two-way communication but a very sophisticated
and complex interaction that requires not only the framework conditions that allow dialogue to
occur, but most of all human sensitivity for soft factors of communication. Dialogue is human
interaction and every individual communicates differently and has a different level of sensitivity
for the orientation of communication, which is precisely why normative dialogue is so difficult
to implement.
Some examples demonstrated clear occurrence of different dialogic principles, indicating
that to a certain extent, dialogue does occur in communication between climate research
institutes and climate policymakers. However, the interviews clearly brought to the surface that
in many cases of communication, Kent and Taylor’s (2002) dialogic principles were not
demonstrated and with that, in many science-policy interactions normative dialogue does not
occur.
5.2. Potential of Dialogue for Climate Science-Policy Interaction
Asking interviewees separately from dialogic principles for constraints and facilitators of
dialogue primarily aimed at increasing reliability of research data, and giving interviewees space
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
81
to mention factors not already addressed within the context of dialogue and communication,
hence non-communicative constraints and facilitators. Respectively, many segments overlapped
and were coded both in categories of dialogic principles and to constraints or facilitators. This
section aims to shortly summarize factors already outlined above and add factors determining the
potential of dialogue that were not mentioned yet.
5.2.1. Constraints to Dialogue
To summarize, interviewees gave examples identifying constraints to dialogue rooted in
the framework conditions that science-policy interactions generally take place in. Among those
are unequal power relations (no decision-making power for scientists), financial dependencies on
both sides, dependency on voters’ support on the policy side, a lack of engagement opportunities,
a lack of informal spaces to exchange knowledge and a lack of time to understand complex
scientific contexts. Furthermore, scientists are lacking motivation and benefits to engage with
policymakers. Barriers to dialogue that are of communicative nature are a lack of ability to
contextualize and explain scientific findings for policymakers, misleading communication of
scientific uncertainty, a lack of openness for scientific findings that might not be in line with a
political direction, and a lack of empathetic understanding for each other.
5.2.2. Facilitators of Dialogue
Examples that facilitated dialogue were expert conversations that simply had the purpose
of bringing together different contributors of knowledge and exchanging thoughts without
focusing on a specific outcome, and collaborative settings for conversations in which scientists’
input was truly acknowledged as a basis for decision-making, for instance in an enquete
commission or in the preparation of the UNEP Global Environmental Outlook report.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
82
Interviewees suggested that scientific uncertainty should be effectively communicated as an
opportunity to act on an issue now, in order to avoid negative consequences of inaction in the
future, so that it will not be used by policymakers as an excuse for inaction or to contest science
itself. Furthermore, a precondition for dialogue to evolve is that scientists don’t give up their
position as objective experts providing alternatives for decision-making; scientists remaining
two-handed and policymakers starting to be open to accommodating their positions to what
science tells them will enhance dialogue. Another facilitator identified by interviewees is when
scientists communicate comprehensibly without being condescending, and when they find ways
to be policy-relevant by contextualizing scientific findings in consideration of the policymaking
process. A key facilitator revealed in the interviews is increased engagement with decision-
makers based on the realization that scientific work has high value for public policymaking.
Moreover, interviewees called for informal briefings and similarly comfortable settings
for policymakers to ask elementary questions of scientists, and to have more direct engagement
opportunities and more participatory policymaking processes. Besides this, communication
departments that work closely with researchers at institutes seem to be a factor increasing the
communication abilities of research institutes and with that facilitating dialogue with
policymakers.
Finally, Prof. Ott outlined three approaches to adapt the framework conditions of our
governance system so that it increases the potential of dialogue for climate science-policy
interaction: first, he described the idea of climate or future councils that have power to enforce,
in that a legislation process needs their approval. If the climate council does not approve a
policy, the legislation process would be delayed. Second, Prof. Ott recalled existing suggestions
to instate expert councils for sustainability matters in general, based on the realization that
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
83
democratic bodies are practically incapable to make the right decisions in those matters. With
this, he raised the critical question whether there are certain issues and questions that should be
detracted from democratic decision-making. Third, Prof. Ott outlined the idea of a reflexive
governance model that allows close interlocking of scientific findings and politics by making
policy decisions retrievable. He argued for the necessity of monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms, for iterative policymaking processes, in governance. Concluding, as a main
challenge today, he identified a strengthening of the democratic system as a form of government
that inherently includes retrievability by allowing a change of government in case of discontent
with policies.
Response to RQ2: What is the potential of dialogue for science-policy interaction?
This study showed that the potential of dialogue for science-policy interaction in our current
political system is rather low due to framework conditions that don’t allow for truly mutual and
committed interaction between scientists and policymakers to occur. Within these framework
conditions, real dialogue cannot evolve. This study also accentuated that beyond framework
conditions for communication, the orientation of communication created by human participants
themselves is crucial to fulfill the potential of dialogue for science-policy interaction, in the end.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
84
6. Conclusion
“Dialogue is the product of a particular type of relational interaction, not just any
communicative interaction. Engagement is a necessary part of dialogue, for
without it, there can be no real dialogue” (Taylor & Kent, 2014, p. 390).
The conclusion of the present study is that the occurrence of dialogue in climate science-policy
interaction is situational and varies according to different constraining or facilitating factors
identified in expert interviews. With the constraining framework conditions of governance and a
lack of communicative qualifications, the potential for normative dialogue in practice is low.
Many of the factors limiting chances for normative dialogue are beyond the direct control of
scientists and many policymakers, indicating that they cannot undertake dialogue that
consistently demonstrates the dialogic principles defined by Kent and Taylor (2002).
6.1. Discussion of Findings and Practical Recommendations to Enhance Dialogue
Despite several challenging factors to the implementation of normative dialogue, the potential of
dialogue for science-policy interaction can be increased by adapting framework conditions,
showcased in the examples of expert conversations simply aiming at an exchange of knowledge,
collaborative approaches to climate policymaking at UN Environment, enquete commissions, a
climate council, or to go even further, a reflexive governance model.
However, even if scientists had decision-making power and policymakers were not dependent on
funding or voters, dialogue can only occur when participants demonstrate sensitivity for soft
factors of communication that scientists and policymakers do have control over: when they
signal supportiveness and collegiality for each other, when scientists explain scientific language
to non-scientific policymakers, when everyone takes a truly open approach to a conversation and
commits to the conversation itself before making any decisions, when scientists communicate
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
85
their findings in a policymaking context, and when both sides create an atmosphere of
collaboration for what is ultimately in everyone’s interest: sustaining our biosphere and life on
earth.
In a similar study on the occurrence of dialogue in public relations practice, Lane and
Bartlett (2016) already concluded that the concept of dialogue itself needs to be re-theorized to
acknowledge its position “as an unattainable ideal” (p. 4088). This finding is to a certain extent
confirmed by the results of the present study. Still, there are concrete measures that can be taken
to enhance dialogue between climate science and policy and at least move closer to the
normative, theoretical ideal, the aspirational model of dialogue:
Initiate Communication Training and Resourcing for Climate Researchers
It is time to include professional communication skills into the curriculum of climate or
environmental scientists, to transmit knowledge about the policymaking process, and about how
to feed scientific findings into it, and to teach how to effectively engage with a non-scientific
audience. Climate policymaking depends on contextualized input from the scientific community,
and resources need to be invested to enable scientists to communicate their findings in a
comprehensible and policy-relevant way. Columbia University’s one-year Master of Public
Administration in Sustainability Science and Policy can be seen as a first step in this direction, as
students “learn to make and communicate science-based policy and management decisions”
(Columbia University, n.d.), with faculty that comprises both Earth Institute scientists, and
experts in the School of International and Public Affairs. Beyond education and training,
resources at research institutes need to be invested in communication departments that work
closely with research teams.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
86
Increase Engagement with Policymakers and Advocate for the Importance of Evidence-
Informed Policymaking
The policymaking community needs to effectively communicate to scientists that their
work has immense value and significance for public policymaking, and respectively the
scientific community itself needs to bridge the gap between university and policy worlds, and
begin incorporating the implementation of scientific findings into the self-understanding of their
profession. Scientists can be encouraged to engage with policymakers during their education, but
ultimately, they also need to feel appreciated by policymakers. Both scientists and policy-makers
are responsible for bridging the engagement gap between them in their daily work.
Create More Informal Spaces for Knowledge-Exchange
There is a demand for more opportunities for scientists and policymakers to directly
engage and explore topics in their complexity to increase mutual understanding. Policymakers
will benefit from more informal briefings and intimate expert conversations that allow them to
ask elementary questions, and through that, scientists may also develop a better sense of how
they can comprehensibly communicate their work to policymakers. Formal town halls or
process-driven reports don’t necessarily provide sufficient space for both sides to truly
understand each other’s needs.
Create Equal Framework Conditions for Climate Science-Policy Interaction
Equal framework conditions for conversations with scientists can be informally created in
every project interaction, by simply allowing scientists to take part in decisions or by actually
making decisions based on scientists’ findings. However, in order to formally create equal
framework conditions, governance changes such as a sustainability council or retrievable policy-
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
87
decisions may be worth considering. Ultimately, policymakers process an immense breadth of
topics in their daily-work and might be relieved to give particularly complex contexts over to
experts.
6.2. Critical Reflection and Outlook
All expert interviewees expressed strong interest in the topic of climate science-policy
dialogue, confirming the relevance of this study for the practice of science-policy interaction.
This study provides a first, exploratory contribution to understanding the communicative aspects
of science-policy interaction that is currently taking place in our society.
“Science, well used, holds great potential to improve life on earth. Science, poorly
used, can lead to political gridlock, bad decisions, and threaten the sustainability
of the scientific enterprise” (Pielke Jr., 2007, p. 38).
The present research confirms the existence of a science-policy gap, from the perception
of both scientists and policymakers, and suggests practical steps to take to enhance dialogue and
with that, ultimately increase the probability of actual evidence-based policymaking. The
operationalization of dialogue deduced from public relations theory proved itself useful to assess
the occurrence of dialogue in practice. However, the rather one-directional public relations
approach with a focus on research institutes, that was taken to assessing dialogue in the
theoretical part of this study, turned out to fall short of the interactive nature of dialogue that
inherently involves efforts made by both interlocutors, research institutes and policymakers. This
study showed that it is inadequate to limit criticism on poor dialogue between climate science
and policy to the scientific community. Based on the present study, the term “research-to-policy”
(Warira et al., 2017, p. 382) gap often used in theory (see chapter 2) is not accurately describing
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
88
the full complexity of the problem; there is a science-policy gap, but the common understanding
of science as a communicator to policy is already part of the reason why there is a
communicative gap. Not only scientists need to increase engagement and communicate more
comprehensibly; policymakers as well need to engage with scientists on a more equal, mutual
level. Both the scientific and the policymaking community need to demonstrate a sophisticated
understanding of and commitment to dialogue in order for normative dialogue to be
implemented. In the end, dialogue requires a bridge to be built from both sides of the canyon.
This study was limited to a small selection of interviewees of three world regions. Future
studies can take the methodology framework derived from the dialogic principles of Kent and
Taylor (2002) and apply it to different world regions and larger samples, in order to increase
relevance and validity of the findings of this study, and to allow country comparisons. The
methodology can also be applied to a more specific communicative context of science-policy
interaction, for example the UN Environment Assembly or the UNFCCC Conference of Parties
on an international level, or specific regional events and processes of science-policy interaction.
As suggested in chapter 2.4, research of the present study focused solely on two groups
of actors involved in the policymaking process: scientists and decision-makers. However, to
assess dialogue in climate policymaking in its full breadth, future studies need to analyze
communicative interaction between all actors, including advocacy groups, and think tanks, for
example. Studies following the present one should further consider indirect processes of
communication occurring between climate science and policymaking, that are mediated through
journalists or other actors. The dialogic principles showed to be highly interpretive categories for
a content analysis, hence the coding that this study’s results are based on was strongly dependent
on the researcher. Nevertheless, a detailed code book was developed that minimized the
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
89
probability of other researchers coding differently. This code book may as well be used and
refined for further research on this topic.
As the nature of the present study was exploratory and qualitative, results are not
generalizable, but considering the high level of expertise due to interviewees’ work experiences
in both science and policy, the results bring first light into the dark gap between climate
scientists and policymakers.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
VI
Appendix A: Interview Structure
1. Introduction by researcher and interviewee, research interest
a. Personal introduction, and to the research project (short)
b. To begin with, what are your current responsibilities at XYZ (the interviewees’
organization)
2. Experiences of communication with climate research institutes/ policymakers
(Short explanation of the underlying understanding of communication not as a process,
but as complex human interaction; interest in soft factors of communication and personal
experiences)
a. Can you please tell me about your experiences of communication with climate
research institutes/ policymakers?
b. How would you describe the overall atmosphere in which communication
evolved?
3. Experiences of dialogue with climate research institutes/ policymakers
a. What are your experiences of dialogue with climate researchers/ policymakers?
Can you please give examples?
i. Occurrence of mutuality: Can you think of an experience with dialogue
in which you had a mutual conversation with climate researchers/
policymakers, in that both parties accommodated their position and
collaborated for an outcome that benefitted both? Did both sides make
attempts to understand the other side’s position, while they still
represented their own? Did you feel like both sides acknowledged their
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
VII
codependency? Did the communicative environment create an atmosphere
of equality?
ii. Occurrence of propinquity: Can you think of an experience with
dialogue that was underpinned by the principle of propinquity, meaning
that dialogue took place before any decisions were made, so input from
both parties could be taken into account? Who usually decides what topics
you are going to discuss together? Is present dialogue embedded in
relation to past and future? Were scientific findings communicated in a
contextualized way, so that they were policy-relevant and useful for
policymakers?
iii. Occurrence of empathy: Can you think of an experience with dialogue
that was characterized by empathy, meaning that interlocutors showed
supportiveness and collegiality, and demonstrated confirmation of the
others position, to build trust? Did participants aim at mutual
understanding? How would you describe the communication atmosphere?
Ho was scientific language communicated? How are deniers of climate
change handling scientific information, are they receptive to it?
iv. Occurrence of risk: Can you think of an experience with dialogue in
which participants took a risk, in that the dialogue could have resulted in
unanticipated consequences (for instance through disclosure of sensitive
information or the acknowledgement of the other side’s position)? How is
uncertainty communicated by research institutes?
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
VIII
v. Occurrence of commitment: Can you think of an experience with
dialogue in which participants demonstrated commitment to the
conversation itself, working towards mutual benefit and understanding
between both parties, by communicating genuinely honest, forthright and
direct? Would you say policymakers were genuinely interested in making
science-based decisions, or are economic and political interests, values,
more important?
4. Constraints to dialogue: From your previous experience in science-policy engagement,
how would you evaluate the communication? Do you perceive a communication gap
between both parties? Why or why not, what are constraining factors to dialogue in
practice?
5. Facilitators of dialogue: What are your suggestions to enhance dialogue between
climate research institutes and policymakers? How to facilitate dialogue and make
communication more effective?
6. Conclusion
a. Would you like to mention anything else related to your experiences with
dialogue between climate science and policy that I have not addressed?
b. Interested in results of the Master’s thesis?
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
IX
Appendix B: Category System
1. Occurrence of dialogue
a. Mutuality
b. Propinquity
c. Empathy
d. Risk
e. Commitment
2. Potential of dialogue
a. Constraints to dialogue
b. Facilitators of dialogue
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
X
Appendix C: Code Book
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
XI
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
XII
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
XIII
References
Brosius, H., Haas, A. & Koschel, F. (2012). Methoden der empirischen
Kommunikationsforschung. Eine Einführung (6th edition). Wiesbaden, Germany:
Springer VS.
Caplan, N. (1979). The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization. American
Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459-470.
Columbia University (n.d.). Master of Public Administration in Environmental Science and
Policy. Retrieved from http://mpaenvironment.ei.columbia.edu/about/program-overview/
COP23 (2017, November 18). Key Achievements from COP23. Retrieved from
https://cop23.com.fj/key-achievements-cop23/
Corner, A. & Clarke, J. (2017). Talking Climate. From Research to Practice in Public
Engagement. Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland.
Deutsche Welle (2017, November 18). COP23: Climate negotiations agree on way forward.
Retrieved from http://www.dw.com/en/cop23-climate-negotiations-agree-on-way-
forward/a-41430777
Dialogue (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dialogue
Eubanks, P. (2015). The Troubled Rhetoric and Communication of Climate Change: The
Argumentative Situation. Routledge: London and New York.
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
XIV
Foss, S. K., & Griffin, C. L. (1995). Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric.
In R. T. Craig & H. L. Muller (Eds.), Theorizing Communication (143-157). Sage
Publications.
Freedman, D. (2008). The Politics of Media Policy. Polity Press: Malden, MA.
Friedman, L. & Plumer, B. (2017, November 18). What Happened (and Didn’t) at the Bonn
Climate Talks. New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/climate/bonn-climate-cop23.html
Gallo, J. (2017). Translating Science into Policy and Legislation: Evidence-Informed
Policymaking. In K. Jamieson, D. Kahan & D Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
the Science of Science Communication (243-252). Oxford University Press.
Grunig, J. & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York London: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Hagen, B. (2016). Public Perception of Climate Change: Policy and Communication. London
and New York: Routledge.
IASS (n.d.). Dr. Erika von Schneidemesser. Retrieved from https://www.iass-
potsdam.de/en/people/erika-von-schneidemesser
Kent, M. & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a Dialogic Theory of Public Relations. Public Relations
Review 28 (2002), 21-37.
Kotcher et al. (2017). Does Engagement in Advocacy Hurt the Credibility of Scientists? Results
from a Randomized National Survey Experiment. Environmental Communication 11:3,
415-429. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
XV
Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (2nd
edition). Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa.
Lamnek, S. (2005). Qualitative Sozialforschung (4th edition). Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag.
Lane, A. & Bartlett, J. (2016). Why Dialogic Principles Don’t Make It in Practice – and What
We Can Do About It. International Journal of Communication 10(2016), 4074-4094.
Littlejohn, S. & Foss, K. (2011). Theories of Human Communication (10th edition). Long Grove,
IL: Waveland Press Inc.
Mayer, H. (2013). Interview und schriftliche Befragung. Grundlagen und Methoden empirischer
Sozialforschung (6th edition). München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.
Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (12th edition).
Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag.
Meixler, E. (2018, April 23). Michael Bloomberg Pledged $4.5 Million to Uphold U.S.
Commitment to the Paris Agreement. Time. Retrieved from
http://time.com/5249963/michael-bloomberg-4-5-million-paris-climate-accord/
Moser, S. (2016). Reflections on Climate Change Communication Research and Practice in the
Second Decade of the 21st Century: What More is there to Say?. WIREs Climate Change,
7:345-369. doi: 10.1002/wcc.403.
Mukherjee, I., & Howlett, M. (2016). Communicating about Climate Change with Policymakers.
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Retrieved from
http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acre
fore-9780190228620-e-416
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
XVI
Pielke Jr., R. A. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Policymaker (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/policymaker
Priest, S. (2016). Communicating Climate Change: The Path Forward. Palgrave Studies in
Media and Environmental Communication.
Przyborski, A. & Wohlrab-Sahr, M. (2014). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Arbeitsbuch (4th
edition). München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.
Röttger, U. et al. (2011). Grundlagen der Public Relations. Eine
kommunikationswissenschaftliche Einführung. Wiesbaden, German: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, Springer Fachmedien.
Russmann, U. & Lane, A. (2016). Doing the Talk: Discussion, Dialogue, and Discourse in
Action. International Journal of Communication 10(2016), 4034-4039.
Schmitz, S. (2017, March 14). Reden, Vertrauen und Zeit: Wie wir Brücken schaffen zwischen
Wissenschaft und Politik. IASS Potsdam Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.iass-
potsdam.de/de/2017/03/bruecken-zwischen-wissenschaft-und-politik/
Simonis, G. (Ed.). (2017). Handbuch Globale Klimapolitik. Schöningh.
Taylor, M. & Kent, M. (2014). Dialogic Engagement: Clarifying Foundational Concepts.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 384-398. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2014.956106
Theunissen, P. & Wan Noordin, W. (2012). Revisiting the concept of „dialogue“ in public
BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
XVII
relations. Public Relations Review 38 (2012), 5-13. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.006
Treadwell, D. (2014). Introducing Communication Research. Paths of Inquiry. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.
UNFCCC (2018, January 8). Damage from Natural Disasters almost Doubled in 2017
Compared to 2016. Retrieved from https://cop23.unfccc.int/news/damage-from-natural-
disasters-almost-doubled-in-2017-compared-to-2016
United Nations (2017, December 12). One Planet Summit: Finance commitments fire-up higher
momentum for Paris Agreement. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2017/12/one-planet-summit-finance-
commitments-fire-higher-momentum-paris-agreement/
Wagner, H. et al. (2008). Qualitative Methoden in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Munich:
Verlag Reinhard Fischer.
Warira, D. et al. (2017). Achieving and Sustaining Evidence-Informed Policy Making: Effective
Communication and Collaboration Can Go a Long Way. Science Communication, 39(3),
382-394. doi: 10.1177/1075547017710243
top related