list of figures - acuns · bridging the gap: enhancing dialogue in science-policy interaction to...

BRIDGING THE GAP: ENHANCING DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-POLICY INTERACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

I

List of Figures


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


III

© 2018 JULIA THEILEN

All Rights Reserved


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)


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


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.


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).


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/


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.


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.


6

Additionally, results are critically reflected by acknowledging limitations of this study, and

suggesting possible inquiries for future research.


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”


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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?


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


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;


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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).


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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?


36


principle of propinquity in their communication with each other? Why or why not?


principle of empathy in their communication with each other? Why or why not?


principle of risk in their communication with each other? Why or why not?


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.


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).


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-


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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“


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


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“


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“


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“


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“


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“


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“


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


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“


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.“


61


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


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


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


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“


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.


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“


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?”


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


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“


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.“


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


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“


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


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.


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


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


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“


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.“


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


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.“


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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-


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


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


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.


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


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?


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?


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


X

Appendix C: Code Book


XI


XII


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.


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


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


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


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

list of figures - acuns · bridging the gap: enhancing dialogue in science-policy interaction to...

Documents