Climate Stories: Enabling and sustaining arts interventions in climate science communication
- 1Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, UK
- 2Mathematics, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, United Kingdom
- 3Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom
- 4Independent artist
- 5English, College of Humanities, University of Exeter, United Kingdom
- 6Drama, College of Humanities, University of Exeter, United Kingdom
- 7Earth Sciences, University College London, United Kingdom
- 1Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, UK
- 2Mathematics, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, United Kingdom
- 3Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom
- 4Independent artist
- 5English, College of Humanities, University of Exeter, United Kingdom
- 6Drama, College of Humanities, University of Exeter, United Kingdom
- 7Earth Sciences, University College London, United Kingdom
Abstract. The climate science community faces a major challenge for communicating the risks associated with climate change within a heavily politicised landscape, characterised by varying degrees of denial, scepticism, distrust in scientific enterprise and an increased prevalence of misinformation (“fake news”). This issue is particularly significant given the reliance on conventional ‘deficit’ communication approaches, which are based on the assumption that scientific information provision will necessarily lead to desired behavioural changes. Indeed, we argue that the constrained orthodoxy of scientific practices in seeking to maintain strict objectivity and political separation imposes very tangible limits on the potential effectiveness of climate scientists for communicating risk in many contemporary settings. To address these challenges, this paper uses insights from a collaboration between UK climate scientists and artist researchers to advocate for a more creative and emotionally attentive approach to climate science engagement and advocacy. In so doing, the paper highlights innovative ways in which climate change communication can be re-imagined through different art forms to enable complex concepts to become knowable, accessible and engaging to wider publics. We demonstrate that in learning to express their work through forms of art, including print-making, theatre and performance, song-writing and creative writing, researchers experienced not only a sense of liberation from the rigid communicative framework operating in their familiar scientific environment, but also a growing self-confidence in their ability and willingness to engage in new ways of expressing their work. As such, we argue that scientific institutions and funding bodies should recognise the potential value of climate scientists engaging in advocacy through art-science collaborations and that these personal investments and contributions to science engagement by individuals should be rewarded and valued alongside conventional scientific outputs.
Ewan Woodley et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gc-2022-7', Tiziana Lanza, 31 Mar 2022
Interesting work but the paper needs to be re-organized. Please see attachment for Review
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ewan Woodley, 31 May 2022
Dear Tiziana,
Many thanks for taking the time to review this manuscript. We very much appreciate your efforts and very helpful comments.Â
We have reviewed all of your comments and we are grateful for these observations, which are logical and which we are happy to address in their entirety. Specifically, we recognise that the manuscript would benefit from clearer signposting to the reader and less repetition of specific statements.
In addition, we are happy to provide further detail on the methodological aspects of the research and we agree that this would be highly beneficial in bringing out a clearer sense of the research process and participants roles. In particular, we will expand on the intreview process and the structuring of questions to participants.
We are also extremely grateful for the specific points (including line numbers) and we will address all of these at the appropriate time.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Ewan
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ewan Woodley, 31 May 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on gc-2022-7', Frances Fahy, 15 Apr 2022
This is an important and valuable paper addressing relevant scientific questions that are well within the scope of Geoscience Communication, and I believe that it will be of keen interest to readers of GC. The paper clearly outlines some of the challenges that face the climate science community in communicating environmental risks and offers a very comprehensive critical review of existing dominant deficit approaches to communicating climate change.
My main reservation with the manuscript as it currently stands is that a couple of sentences in the abstract and opening sections, related to claims around engaging wider publics, appear to ‘over promise’ (details and specific examples are presented in the full review). However, this point might simply require a minor revision to ensure consistency with the stated aims throughout the paper. Otherwise the results presented throughout this paper are sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions. Other minor suggestions to strengthen this paper, including potential to reduce some repetition in the sections 2 and 3, are detailed in the review. In summary, it is a very engaging and accessible paper, detailing an innovative collaboration, and I highly recommend it for publication in this journal.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ewan Woodley, 31 May 2022
Dear Frances,
Many thanks for taking the time to review this manuscript. We very much appreciate your efforts and very helpful comments.Â
We have reviewed all of your comments and we are grateful for these observations. We agree that the abstract should be rephrased to address claims to knowledge construction. We also agree that the opening section contains repetitious components and that these sections would benefit from being shortened.
On reflection, the claim regarding the case for collaboration is an overstatement in its current form, and we agree that this should be rephrased.
Many thanks for your specific comments, including line numbers. We will endeavour to address the use of repetitive language throughout the paper.
Many thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed review. It's much appreciated and will benefit the manuscript.
Best wishes,
Ewan
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ewan Woodley, 31 May 2022
Ewan Woodley et al.
Ewan Woodley et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
300 | 85 | 18 | 403 | 8 | 8 |
- HTML: 300
- PDF: 85
- XML: 18
- Total: 403
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1