‘The moral of the story is…’: telling your environmental research story to policymakers


 Recent research suggests that bringing narrative to communication on environmental science may improve that communication’s effectiveness and motivate action. Policymakers need input from scientists in order to make informed, evidence-based decisions, and storytelling may serve as an excellent way to provide these policymakers with the science they need in an easy-to-digest format. In this perspective article, story elements, including setting, characters, plot, and moral, are explored as they relate to environmental science communication, often with regards to climates change. There are challenges to storytelling, and it is not always the right medium for environmental science communication, but it may prove very helpful when engaging policymakers.

In her opening testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Climate Crisis Committee's Hearing on Sustainability and the Food System (2022), Dr Melinda Cep told policymakers a story about a visit to a ranch in the Dakotas. A farmer there told her he knew the conservation plan she was helping to implement was working because his 90-yearold father told him that the front pasture once again resounded with the song of birds long absent from the area. The story apparently had an impact as one representative requested that she follow up with him to give her thoughts on a bill he was considering. This is not the first or last story to assist a scientist in articulating the importance of their work: there is a growing field of research regarding the effectiveness of storytelling as a means of communication for environmental science (Sundin et al 2018, Harris 2019, Lidskog et al 2020. Chiefly focused on climate change but certainly having implications for many other environmental matters, this research indicates that scientists hoping to communicate their work may have a means of connecting with their audience that is by no means new but certainly deserves to be explored in a new light (Sundin et al 2018). This article explores in particular how storytelling can facilitate environmental science communication with policymakers. In addition to the anecdotal evidence above, recent studies suggest that policymakers respond particularly well to stories and storytelling above other forms of communication (Bogenschneider and Corbett 2010). There is a value therefore in exploring how environmental scientists might leverage storytelling practices already taking place, particularly in the field of climate change communication (Harris 2019, De Meyer et al 2020, Bloomfield and Manktelow 2021, for communication with policymakers. We often think of storytelling as a social activity, but it is also a mechanism for resolving conflict and facilitating democracy. For example, an analysis of five National Issues Forums (small-group deliberative meetings), found that much deliberation is conducted as storytelling (Ryfe 2006). Participants 'make sense of an issue' (p 82) through a back and forth exchange of ideas expressed through stories. This is especially critical when true dialogue is not an option (Black 2008). In cases where one-on-one conversation cannot be achieved, storytelling bridges the gap between dialogue and monologue 'because personal stories have the potential to invite dialogic moments in the context of group deliberation' (p 95).
One area in particular where dialogue may prove difficult, but where communication is critical, is the interaction between scientists and policymakers. As the call for evidence-based policymaking gains momentum (Newcomer and Hart 2021), the need increases for policymakers to seek information from scientists and for scientists to listen to policymaker issues of focus and provide evidence. This interaction is difficult for scientists of any discipline (Bogenschneider andCorbett 2010, Druckman 2015). There are several obstacles to overcome, such as gaining and maintaining a policymaker's attention, supporting learning for a policymaker with little or no background on the subject, communicating uncertainty in a transparent and constructive manner, addressing or bypassing the politicization of the science, and overcoming motivated reasoning (Druckman 2015). These challenges are augmented for environmental scientists who must contend with the problematic and increasing polarization of environmental science in politics (Johnson and Schwadel 2019).
A growing body of research suggests that much as the power of storytelling bridges the gap between dialogue and deliberation, it may also facilitate environmental scientists' engagement with policymakers (Bogenschneider and Corbett 2010, Davidson 2017, Sundin et al 2018. For example, when surveying Wisconsin policymakers, Bogenschneider and Corbett (2010) found that 'A personal story from a constituent about how the policy affected him or her' mattered more to the participants than any other information type (p 41). In fact, one policymaker told the researchers, 'If you give legislators the research and facts, and I tell a heart-wrenching story, I will win every time' (p 41). Why should a heart-wrenching story 'win? ' Druckman (2015) notes that policymakers cannot be 'fully informed' on every issue on which they must make a decision. Instead, they rely on heuristics to support their decisionmaking process. In discussing how scientists should best connect with policymakers, Druckman states, 'it is not the amount of information or facts that matter but rather which information decision makers use: information that facilitates their ability to (1) identify which values are most relevant for a given decision… and (2) connect the given value to the decision' (p 59).
Similarly, in a review of 'grey' literature, Davidson (2017) found that using stories to connect with policymakers on a moral or personal (or heuristic) level is considered by many to be more effective than presenting analytical facts: '[O]ften the most important questions that need to be answered are not ones that can be answered simply by turning to research… These are questions of what "ought to be"-questions of values, not facts' (p 4).
For many scientists, this emphasis on 'values, not facts' may seem to imply that the scientist should advocate for a specific policy decision, rather than providing the science and allowing the policymaker to make an evidence-based decision. There is an important distinction to make between roles that scientist might play when engaging a policymaker. Pielke (2007) offers several options, including a science arbiter (who answers policymakers' questions as they arise), an honest broker of policy alternatives (who offers evidence for a variety of policy alternatives, possibly to include options not yet considered), an issue advocate (who provides science as evidence in support of a specific decision). While these are all ethical options, he warns against falling into the trap of playing 'stealth issue advocate' where the scientist, perhaps unwittingly, offer evidence with the intention of supporting (or countering) a specific decision.
There is nothing unethical about a scientist serving as an issue advocate, provided that they are open in their intention to contribute evidence specifically in support of a certain policy (Pielke 2007). The scientist should recognize they may need to offer this advocacy as a private citizen, rather than as a representative of their organization. In many cases, scientists will prefer to serve as science arbiters or honest brokers. Davidson's (2017) emphasis on 'values, not facts' still applies: a scientist can provide evidence and even multiple decision options in the context of values. Storytelling provides an avenue for this context.
A large amount of study has gone into understanding how storytelling can improve communication regarding climate change. Bloomfield and Manktelow (2021) make the argument that in the Summaries for Policymakers of its Assessment Reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should use storytelling to assist lay audiences with better understanding the science. They note that all stories share four elements: characters, setting, plot, and moral. As a beginning, the IPCC's Summaries for Policymakers could include headers which feature characters, specifically the policymakers themselves. They rewrite the headline of 'Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change' to 'Global governments and leaders can enact both adaptation and mitigation as complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change' (p 33). The latter statement tells a story: Global (the setting) governments and leaders (the characters) can enact both adaptation and mitigation as complementary strategies (the plot) for reducing and managing the risks of climate change (the moral). A 'moral of the story' may seem more difficult for an IPCC writer or any environmental scientist connecting with a policymaker who fears falling into the trap of becoming a 'stealth issue advocate' by inadvertently supporting a specific policy action. (Pielke 2007). Addressing this concern, Bloomfield and Manktelow argue that climate change is such a serious concern that 'to report it is to imply that action should be taken' (p 34). They note the comparison of carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere to a bathtub filling with water. The drain plug must be pulled or the faucet turned off, or the bathtub will overflow. The perception that this 'must' be done has increased support for action on climate change among those who have been provided with this analogy. In other words, it connects the science to a value, as Druckman (2015) recommends. Bloomfield and Manktelow argue that, without directing policy (stealth issue advocacy), IPCC might identify specific goals (e.g. 'reducing and managing the risks of climate change') which can serve as story morals.
Likewise, De Meyer et al (2020) tap into social psychology, communication research, and health communication practices to argue that communication on climate change should be 'action-based' rather than 'issue-based.' Here again, the storytelling approach supports environmental science communication: rather focusing communication on the 'issue' of what climate change is or even what it affects, scientists can focus on 'action,' or plot, as well as goals, or morals. The story method can empower the audience to take action. When engaging a policymaker, this may be a story of another town, state, or even nation which has taken strides to address an environmental issue. For Dr Cep, it was a story of songbirds returning to a ranch in the Dakotas, indicating the success of a conservation effort. Stories can help the audience not to feel panicked, but rather empower them to address the issue at hand.
Storytelling is not always the answer, and it should be approached with a degree of caution. Mäkelä et al (2021) studied the 'Dangers of Narrative' in the media. Examining storytelling instances in the political realm shared over social media, they discuss the phenomenon in which storytelling is used to manipulate emotions, downplay certain facts, and convey false information. Mäkelä and Meretoja (2022) go on to say that, 'storytelling is marketed with the cognitive vocabulary of essentiality, universality, embodiment, naturalness, and empathy, and yet it is precisely these features that are considered efficient rhetorical tools, or even weapons in the "story wars."' (p 198). These warnings again tie back to 'stealth issue advocacy' (Pielke 2007), as a scientist may inadvertently guide their policymaker towards a specific decision while telling a compelling story.
To avoid this, the 'plot' of the story should be chosen carefully. If the scientist has one policy solution to offer, one plot for the characters of the story to take, then that scientist should very clearly state that they are advocating for a specific action to be taken. If, on the other hand they wish to offer multiple solutions, they can present multiple plots, offering the policymaker multiple solutions. The moral, or goal, of the story or stories might remain the same, or it might change. For example, the moral or goal of one conservation story may be to preserve as much species habitat as possible, while another goal may be to promote cohabitation between the species and humanity. For both an issue advocate and an honest broker, the story may also be the journey of discovery the scientist has taken with their own research with the moral being the discovery itself.
A scientist may choose not to present their evidence in a storytelling format at all to avoid the potential for manipulation and miscommunication that Mäkelä et al (2021) warn of. Particularly in instances when a policymaker approaches a scientist requesting 'just the facts' it seems only appropriate to provide the science without additional storytelling. With the rise of storytelling as a tool for science communication, and particularly climate change communication, there is concern that this particular style of communication may be en vogue now but quickly become guilty of oversaturation. A recent study by Crowley et al (2021) quantifying the effectiveness of a researcher-policymaker partnership model may serve as an excellent model for similarly quantifying the effectiveness of storytelling with policymakers. Additional studies may help researchers to understand to what extent storytelling is an effective tool before it is overused. As anthropologists such as Joseph Campbell (1959) suggest, storytelling has been a part of the human experience for most of our history. It is not so much en vogue therefore, as it is being recognized as an environmental science communication tool.
As human beings, we have told stories to one another for millennia. Stories do not simply entertain, they convey ideas in a way that is easier to process, digest, and act upon than more abstract facts. They facilitate deliberation and conflict resolution. Recent research suggests that bringing narrative to communication on environmental science may improve that communication's effectiveness and motivate action. Policymakers need input from scientists in order to make informed, evidence-based decisions, and storytelling is an excellent way to provide them with the science they need in an easyto-digest format. Stories should have characters (the policymaker themselves, humanity, future generations, the at-risk species, etc), setting (specific communities or locations struggling with the issue), plot (the action to address the issue) and a moral (the ultimate goal of the action.) They should not simply raise concern for an issue but rather empower the policymaker to make a difference. Engaging with policymakers is difficult, and storytelling is not always the best communication approach for presenting evidence, but a good story could go a long way in helping a policymaker to understand the impact of the science we study.

Data availability statement
No new data were created or analysed in this study.