The social structure of climate change research and practitioner engagement: Evidence from California

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102074Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Most climate change researchers in California want to increase their engagement with practitioners, and the more researchers focus on climate change, the more they want to engage practitioners.

  • The frequency of engagement with practitioners varies significantly across academic fields.

  • The most highly engaged disciplines are also the most peripheral disciplines in climate science.

  • Representing empirically the social structure of climate research, including its demographic and disciplinary composition, can inform future research on the “co-production” of climate information in contexts of public decision-making.

Abstract

Interactions between researchers and practitioners can lead to the increased use of climate science in decision-making. Past studies on these interactions have focused on the information needs of decision-makers, but less is known about why and how climate researchers choose to engage with decision-makers. Understanding the experiences, beliefs and constraints on both sides of the ‘knowledge-action gap’ is critical for implementing robust climate adaptation strategies. This study thus examines the perspectives and experiences of researchers regarding practitioner engagement, drawing from an original survey of California's climate research community (N= 991) and supplemental interviews. Given a history of support for climate research and climate change adaptation, analysis of the California case is useful as a means of characterizing the relationship between climate research and practitioner engagement. We find that most scientists want to engage more with practitioners but are constrained by several factors, including resource limitations and the challenge of building relationships. Additionally, we find that the level of interest and frequency of engagement with stakeholders varies significantly across academic disciplines. We demonstrate that building capacity within research organizations and integrating stakeholder engagement in funding criteria and professional development can help foster relationship-building between scientists and decision-makers. The analysis suggests that the social structure of climate research warrants further examination of the ways that climate researchers relate to practitioners at present.

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)

  • S. Klinsky et al.

    Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research

    Global Environ. Change

    (2017)
  • M.C. Lemos

    Usable climate knowledge for adaptive and co-managed water governance

    Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.

    (2015)
  • M.C. Lemos et al.

    The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments

    Global Environ. Change

    (2005)
  • E.C. McNie

    Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2007)
  • R. Meyer et al.

    How California is mobilizing boundary chains to integrate science, policy and management for changing ocean chemistry

    Clim. Risk Manage.

    (2015)
  • E. Ostrom

    Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development

    World Dev.

    (1996)
  • J.J. Porter et al.

    Mini-me: why do climate scientists’ misunderstand users and their needs?

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2017)
  • B.L. Preston et al.

    Toward reflexive climate adaptation research

    Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., Open Issue

    (2015)
  • D. Sarewitz et al.

    The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science

  • J. Vogel et al.

    Co-producing actionable science for water utilities

    Clim. Serv.

    (2016)
  • J. Anderson et al.

    Progress on incorporating climate change into management of California's water resources

    Clim. Change

    (2008)
  • J. Barnes et al.

    Contribution of anthropology to the study of climate change

    Nat. Climate Change

    (2013)
  • L. Bedsworth et al.

    Statewide Summary ReportCalifornia's Fourth Climate Change Assessment (No. SUMCCCA4-2018– 013)

    (2018)
  • D. Bidwell et al.

    Fostering knowledge networks for climate adaptation

    Nat. Climate Change

    (2013)
  • S. Bremer et al.

    Co-production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives

    Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change

    (2017)
  • C. Brown et al.

    Decision scaling: linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in the water sector

    Water Resour. Res.

    (2012)
  • J. Brugger et al.

    Lessons from first-generation climate science integrators

    Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.

    (2015)
  • J. Buizer et al.

    Making short-term climate forecasts useful: linking science and action

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2016)
  • D.W. Cash et al.

    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

    (2006)
  • W.C. Clark et al.

    Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2016)
  • M. Collins et al.

    Chapter 12 - long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility

    Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. IPCC Working Group I Contribution to AR5

    (2013)
  • G. Cundill et al.

    The future is collaborative

    Nature Climate Change

    (2019)
  • R.E. Dunlap et al.

    Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives

    (2015)
  • E. Durkheim

    What is a social fact?

  • E.H. Ecklund et al.

    How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach

    PLoS One

    (2012)
  • P.N. Edwards

    A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming

    (2010)
  • K. Ernst et al.

    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

    (2017)
  • F. Fischer et al.

    The neo-liberal transformation of the university

    Crit. Policy Stud.

    (2018)
  • G. Franco et al.

    California's comprehensive approach to climate change: The pivotal role of research

    EM June

    (2014)
  • G. Franco et al.

    Linking climate change science with policy in California

    Clim. Change

    (2008)
  • C.J. Gardner et al.

    Scientists must act on our own warnings to humanity

    Nat. Ecol. Evol.

    (2019)
  • Cited by (16)

    • Integrating adaptation practice in assessments of climate change science: The case of IPCC Working Group II reports

      2022, Environmental Science and Policy
      Citation 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 Physiology
      Citation 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 Change
      Citation 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 Change
      Citation 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.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text