The social structure of climate change research and practitioner engagement: Evidence from California
Introduction
Despite major advances in scientific understanding of climate change and increasingly dire projections of the consequences of such changes, efforts to address climate change appear insufficient when compared to projected impacts (IPCC et al., 2018; Moser et al., 2017). Seeking to explain this “knowledge-action gap” (Kirchhoff et al., 2015b; O'Brien, 2013), scholars have examined the relationship between the production of climate change knowledge and its use by policy makers and resource managers (Buizer et al., 2016; Cash et al., 2006; Lemos, 2015; Lemos et al., 2014, 2012; McNie, 2007; Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007). This scholarship outlines that climate information may be most useful when it is “co-produced” by researchers and decision-makers. Analyses of a “co-production” paradigm, however, have primarily focused on the uptake of specific research products among information users, attending to how the receptivity to climate information is influenced by the social context in which decision-makers are embedded, their technical capacity, and their trust of information producers.
Regarding climate change researchers, less is known about how and why they engage practitioners and about the barriers or opportunities they may face in the process. Scholars working in Science & Technology Studies have shown that social forces shape how climate science is produced (Edwards, 2010; Mahony and Hulme, 2018), yet studies have insufficiently addressed researchers’ activities, motivations, and views regarding engagement with practitioners (Lemos et al., 2018; Preston et al., 2015). One way to address this issue is to focus on co-produced or jointly produced climate knowledge projects (Kolstad et al., 2019; Hegger and Dieperink 2015). Another is to more broadly analyze the institutional context in which climate researchers operate. Our study therefore asks, what is the social structure of climate research, and how does this structure influence patterns of engagement with non-researchers? Understanding the social dynamics of climate science production can help those operating in the domains of research, climate services, and science policy adapt institutions to incentivize knowledge production that proactively shapes and responds to climate actions, policies, and decision-making (Barnes et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2016; McDonald et al., 2019).
To answer these questions, we created a database of research articles, conducted a survey of climate researchers (n = 991), and conducted interviews with select climate researchers (n = 13) in California. Our findings characterize the social structure of the climate research field, describe patterns of engagement among researchers, and explain the drivers of researchers’ engagement and associated barriers. As a case study of research and engagement focused on climate change in California, this study allows us to understand the social dynamics within a specific geographic and governance context while opening lines of theory-building and analysis in comparative contexts. The paper concludes with recommendations for how this study contributes to a more robust social analysis of climate research that can help inform policies that foster effective relationship-building between scientists and decision-makers.
Section snippets
Literature review
Existing studies have proposed several factors that explain why people who may benefit from climate information elect to use it or not. One significant factor is adequate social interaction between knowledge producers and users (Kristjanson et al., 2009; Lemos, 2015). This close interaction is in stark contrast to the traditional, top-down flow of climate information, which begins by producing greenhouse gas emission scenarios and making global climate projections that can inform regional
Methods
The study has three goals:
- 1
Characterize the climate change research field in California, based on a survey of researchers;
- 2
Examine the engagement of climate change researchers with practitioners; and
- 3
Identify what constrains and facilitates researchers to engage with practitioners.
Results
Results of the survey are presented below with associated interview findings. The findings are organized according to the study goals identified above.
Discussion
The survey results and supporting interviews offer notable insights regarding the social structure of climate change research in California. Below we discuss our findings with a focus on four major issues that hold implications for supporting effective engagement between researchers and practitioners. First is the pattern of engagement overall and across research fields. Second is the vision of engaged research that study participants exemplify. Third is the demographic and status composition
Conclusion
As social actors advance activities to anticipate and adapt to the impacts of climate change, the scientific field should also be evaluated on whether it addresses the changing spectrum of public and societal needs. This requires attention not only to climate information as such, but also to researchers as socially embedded actors (Preston et al., 2015). Reflecting on the social composition, engagement, and barriers of those participating in the climate research field, as initiated here, can
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zeke Baker: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Julia A. Ekstrom: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration. Kelsey D. Meagher: Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Benjamin L. Preston: Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Louise Bedsworth: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the survey and interview respondents for sharing their time and insights to make this study possible. We also thank the critical insights of three anonymous reviewers and the guidance provided by Global Environmental Change editors. Financial support for this research was provided by US EPA grant RD835194010. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the grantee and do not necessarily represent the official views of the EPA. Further, the EPA does not endorse the purchase
References (82)
- et al.
Unpacking the ‘information barrier’: comparing perspectives on information as a barrier to climate change adaptation in the interior mountain West
J. Environ. Manage.
(2014) - et al.
Co-producing science for sustainability: can funding change knowledge use?
Global Environ. Change
(2020) - et al.
Climate policy at the local level: insights from California
Global Environ. Change
(2013) - et al.
Overcoming barriers during the co-production of climate information for decision-making
Climate Risk Manage., Boundary Org.
(2015) - et al.
Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy
Global Environ. Change
(2011) - et al.
Identifying and overcoming barriers in urban climate adaptation: case study findings from the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA
Urban Climate
(2014) - et al.
Identifying climate service production constraints to adaptation decision-making in Sweden
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2019) - et al.
Context matters: context-related drivers of and barriers to climate information use
Climate Risk Manage.
(2018) - et al.
Boundary organizations to boundary chains: prospects for advancing climate science application
Climate Risk Manage.
(2015) - et al.
Narrowing the gap between climate science and adaptation action: the role of boundary chains
Climate Risk Manage.
(2015)
Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research
Global Environ. Change
Usable climate knowledge for adaptive and co-managed water governance
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments
Global Environ. Change
Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature
Environ. Sci. Policy
How California is mobilizing boundary chains to integrate science, policy and management for changing ocean chemistry
Clim. Risk Manage.
Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development
World Dev.
Mini-me: why do climate scientists’ misunderstand users and their needs?
Environ. Sci. Policy
Toward reflexive climate adaptation research
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., Open Issue
The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science
Co-producing actionable science for water utilities
Clim. Serv.
Progress on incorporating climate change into management of California's water resources
Clim. Change
Contribution of anthropology to the study of climate change
Nat. Climate Change
Statewide Summary ReportCalifornia's Fourth Climate Change Assessment (No. SUMCCCA4-2018– 013)
Fostering knowledge networks for climate adaptation
Nat. Climate Change
Co-production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives
Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change
Decision scaling: linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in the water sector
Water Resour. Res.
Lessons from first-generation climate science integrators
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.
Making short-term climate forecasts useful: linking science and action
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making: comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems
Sci. Technol. Human Values
Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
Chapter 12 - long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. IPCC Working Group I Contribution to AR5
The future is collaborative
Nature Climate Change
Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives
What is a social fact?
How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach
PLoS One
A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming
Examining challenges related to the production of actionable climate knowledge for adaptation decision-making: a focus on climate knowledge system producers
AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts
The neo-liberal transformation of the university
Crit. Policy Stud.
California's comprehensive approach to climate change: The pivotal role of research
EM June
Linking climate change science with policy in California
Clim. Change
Scientists must act on our own warnings to humanity
Nat. Ecol. Evol.
Cited by (16)
Stakeholder engagement in the co-production of knowledge for environmental decision-making
2023, World DevelopmentTypologies of actionable climate information and its use
2023, Global Environmental ChangeIntegrating adaptation practice in assessments of climate change science: The case of IPCC Working Group II reports
2022, Environmental Science and PolicyCitation Excerpt :Furthermore the low proportion of non-state and non-academic authors (such as public, private and non-profit practitioners) and little acknowledgement of how they have utilised the AR reports and deployed the adaptation solutions, further hampers the wider relevance of the reports. Indeed the lack of incorporation of diverse practitioner actors, expertise and perspectives in the IPCC process can affect the uptake of scientific evidence (Baker et al., 2020; Butler et al., 2020). Previous research has critiqued the AR5 WGII report (Viner and Howarth, 2014) and explored how practitioner evidence could be better incorporated into future AR reports (Howarth et al., 2017).
Applied aspects of the cardiorespiratory system
2022, Fish PhysiologyCitation Excerpt :Our aquatic systems are in trouble (see Chapter 1, Volume 39A: Cooke et al., 2022), but cardiorespiratory physiology techniques can help identify underlying mechanisms, tolerance thresholds, and population vulnerability to further environmental degradation. Evidence suggests that conservation science is most useful for decision-making when it is co-produced by researchers and practitioners (Baker et al., 2020; Cooke et al., 2021). Through collaboration with knowledge holders, rightsholders, and stakeholders, cardiorespiratory physiology research can be incorporated into action to benefit fishes.
The ‘co’ in co-production of climate action: Challenging boundaries within and between science, policy and practice
2022, Global Environmental ChangeCitation Excerpt :In order to overcome this, the concept of co-production allows for communication and engagement between stakeholders of user needs and provider capabilities, in theory offering a more robust framework for interaction with a deeper embedding of stakeholders perspectives, needs, values and priorities. Questions remain, however, over how this ‘co’ production should be practiced and whether or not facilitating dialogue between users and providers of knowledge is enough to overcome the boundaries between embedded epistemological traditions (Baker et al., 2020). In particular, in our discussion of boundary themes explored in these two studies, we consider (i) how evidence is perceived, used and co-produced across scales to inform climate action, (ii) the range of responsibilities held by different climate action ‘stakeholders’, and (iii) the consideration of different stakeholder expertise and knowledge in formulating climate action according to certain timescales and political lifecycles.
Science with society: Evidence-based guidance for best practices in environmental transdisciplinary work
2021, Global Environmental ChangeCitation Excerpt :The effective functioning of diverse teams is a considerable challenge that requires trusting and respectful relationships (Dietz et al., 2003) and shared vision and goals among team members (Balvanera et al., 2017; Hoffmann et al., 2017). Building trusting relationships is typically a time-intensive process (Enengel et al., 2012; Baker et al., 2020), requiring interpersonal skills and characteristics that are often not included in academic training (Wiek et al., 2011). Our results emphasize the importance of flexibility, mutual respect, and collaborative spirit, though non-researchers typically consider humility, trust, and patience more important than flexibility.