Challenges of Advocacy for Sustainability Scientists by Scott McClintock A Dissertation Presented

203 Pages·2015·1.26 MB·English

Challenges of Advocacy for Sustainability Scientists
by
Scott McClintock

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

Approved February 2015 by the
Graduate Supervisory Committee:

Sander Van Der Leeuw, Chair
Mark Hannah
Sonja Klinsky
Nalini Chhetri

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
May 2015
ABSTRACT

Without scientific expertise, society may make catastrophically poor choices
when faced with problems such as climate change. However, scientists who engage
society with normative questions face tension between advocacy and the social norms of
science that call for objectivity and neutrality. Policy established in 2011 by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) required their communication to be
objective and neutral and this research comprised a qualitative analysis of IPCC reports
to consider how much of their communication is strictly factual (Objective), and value-
free (Neutral), and to consider how their communication had changed from 1990 to 2013.
Further research comprised a qualitative analysis of structured interviews with scientists
and non-scientists who were professionally engaged in climate science communication,
to consider practitioner views on advocacy. The literature and the structured interviews
revealed a conflicting range of definitions for advocacy versus objectivity and neutrality.
The practitioners that were interviewed struggled to separate objective and neutral
science from attempts to persuade, and the IPCC reports contained a substantial amount
of communication that was not strictly factual and value-free. This research found that
science communication often blurred the distinction between facts and values, imbuing
the subjective with the authority and credibility of science, and thereby damaging the
foundation for scientific credibility. This research proposes a strict definition for factual
and value-free as a means to separate science from advocacy, to better protect the
credibility of science, and better prepare scientists to negotiate contentious science-based
policy issues. The normative dimension of sustainability will likely entangle scientists in
advocacy or the appearance of it, and this research may be generalizable to sustainability.
i
DEDICATION

To Rhonda, my partner, my friend.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the summer of 2011 I met with Dr. Sander van der Leeuw with a brief Powerpoint
presentation and my argument that the scientific community needed an improved
communication model. This conclusion was the result of two semesters of graduate
classes at the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University, informed by my two
decade career in sales and marketing in the Consumer Packaged Goods industry. My
question to Dr. van der Leeuw that day pertained to the possibility of my pursuing a
doctoral degree on sustainability communication to which he was supportive. Dr. van der
Leeuw was not only instrumental in my acceptance to the School of Sustainability but he
has steadfastly and patiently supported my efforts and clearly none of this would be
possible without his generous mentorship. I must also acknowledge Dr. Nalini Chhetri
who agreed to shoulder a lion’s share of dissertation committee work. Dr Chhetri’s
support ranged beyond mentoring and she recommended and supported my attendance to
several conferences pertinent to my research subject. Climate change is a rich subject for
the study of sustainability communication and I must recognize the contribution of Dr.
Sonja Klinsky whose expertise includes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and her guidance was crucial to my analysis of IPCC communication. I would
also like to recognize Dr. Mark Hannah for his contribution in the areas of rhetoric and
persuasion. I am deeply indebted to each of these dissertation committee members for
their insight, hard work, and patience in contributing to an unusual, yet interdisciplinary
treatment of sustainability communication.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF CHARTS .................................................................................................................. ix
IMPORTANT TERMS ............................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ................ ...................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement ..................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................ 3
Research Context ....................................................................................... 6
Aim/Scope ................................................................................................ 13
Overview of Study ................................................................................... 14
2 SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENTIST ADVOCACY ........................ 16
Historical Background ............................................................................. 17
Defining Scientist Advocacy ................................................................... 19
Arguments Against Scientist Advocacy .................................................. 22
Arguments for Scientist Advocacy .......................................................... 27
Ethics for Scientist Advocacy .................................................................. 28
Scientist Advocacy may be Unavoidable ................................................ 30
Conclusion ................................................................................................ 32
3 THE NORMATIVE ROLE OF SUSTAINABILITY .............................................. 35
Historical Background ............................................................................. 37
iv
CHAPTER Page
Sustainability is Explicitly Normative ..................................................... 47
Conclusion ................................................................................................ 51

4 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATION
56
How Science Provides its Expertise to Society ....................................... 56
The Deficit Model .................................................................................... 59
Proposed Improvements for Science Communication ............................ 60
Synthesis of Literature on Science Communication ............................... 62
Climate Change Communication (CCC)................................................. 63
Discussion ................................................................................................ 68
Conslusion ................................................................................................ 71
5 CONTENT ANALYSIS OF IPCC REPORTS ........................................................ 73
Methodology ............................................................................................ 74
Analysis, 1990 SPM, WG1 ...................................................................... 79
Analysis, 2013 SPM, WG1 ...................................................................... 85
Conclusion ................................................................................................ 94
6 STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH PROFESSIONALS ENGAGED IN
CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATION ....................................... 98
Methodology ............................................................................................ 98
Materials & Procedure ............................................................................. 99
Opinions of Advocacy in CCC .............................................................. 101
v
CHAPTER Page
Normative Views on Advocacy in CCC ............................................... 107
Commentary re: Opinions on Advocacy in CCC ................................. 111
Opinions on Credibility in CCC ............................................................ 112
Commentary re: Opinions on Credibility in CCC ................................ 116
The CCC Audience ................................................................................ 117
Commentary re: The CCC Audience .................................................... 121
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 122
7 CONCLUSION ..................... ................................................................................. 125
Synthesis of Earlier Chapters ................................................................. 125
Salient Conclusions About Scientist Advocacy .................................... 127
Proposed Concepts ................................................................................. 128
Discussion .............................................................................................. 136
Science/Policy Interface ......................................................................... 139
Results Oriented Management ............................................................... 140
Vendor/Customer Norms ....................................................................... 147
Final Comments ..................................................................................... 151
REFERENCES....... ............................................................................................................ 154
APPENDIX
A IRB APPROVAL .................................................................................................. 166
B OUTLINE FOR STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS .............................................. 169
C CODE STRUCTURE FOR IPCC REPORTS ...................................................... 172

vi
Page
D CODE STRUCTURE FOR INTERVIEWS ........................................................ 177
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................................................................................ 190
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Code Frequencies for 1990 WG1 SPM ................................................................ 85
2. Code Frequencies for 1990 and 2013 WG1 SPM ................................................ 93

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Per Draft ‘AR5’ Report, Climate Models Fail. ............................................. 10
2. Authoritarian Science Phrases in Print Media. ............................................. 11
3. Overview of Study. ........................................................................................ 15
4. IPCC Emissions Scenarios, FAR 1990. ........................................................ 83
5. IPCC Observed Temperature Changes. ........................................................ 91
6. Components of Scientist Advocacy. ........................................................... 131
7. Scientist Advocacy as Commonly Practiced by Scientists. ........................ 133
8. Proposed Framework for Scientist Advocacy. ............................................ 135

ix