<p>In this thesis, I investigate
the effects of social and political context on the process and outcomes of
science communication in two different settings, using Dietram Scheufele’s
interpretation of science communication as political communication. </p>
<p>In the first setting, I examine
the communication of climate tipping points at the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) using 26 semi-structured interviews and
271 surveys administered to members of the UNFCCC policy community. Survey
results revealed that only a small minority (14.3%) of policymakers defined
climate tipping points consistently with the scientific community. Interview
responses revealed that many policymakers believed they were not responsible
for incorporating new scientific advice into their work on negotiations, and
that this was the responsibility of scientists. Scientists interviewed
expressed frustration that policymakers were not willing to hear scientific
information they saw as irrelevant to their work on the negotiations.
Policymakers responding to interviews were also unwilling to defy social norms
by introducing a topic they saw as “complicated” into negotiations. Interview
respondents who believed climate tipping points should be discussed within
formal negotiations also noted that they interpreted the effects of climate
change as temporally or spatially immediate to themselves. </p>
<p>In the second setting, I examine
how the United States print media incorporated discussion of climate change
into coverage of the 2017 hurricane season via a content analysis of hurricane
coverage in six major US newspapers. Conservative papers and liberal papers displayed
significant differences in frequency and directness of references to climate
change, as well as a significant difference in the references to climate denial
messages, climate consensus messages, and use of proximity cues. However, the
conservative paper near a 2017 hurricane consistently displayed significant
differences in coverage from the other conservative papers. This paper
frequently used social norms in messaging to shift narratives of acceptability
of climate change discussion among conservatives. Both conservative and liberal
papers near a 2017 hurricane used proximity cues to indicate the effects of
climate change are both physically and temporally near at greater rates than
elite and regional papers not near a 2017 hurricane.</p>
<p>Taken together, these results
reveal that three major factors influenced climate change communication in
these two settings. First, power to define direction and content of science
communication explains the lack of communication about climate tipping points
at the UNFCCC. Policymakers’ hold legitimate power over science communication.
This power is codified within UNFCCC structure. Policymakers’ expert power is
also interpreted as more relevant to negotiations processes than scientists’
expert power; meaning policymakers are free to define what information is
“policy relevant” and therefore, what is communicated. Second, social norms
influenced how and whether communication occurred. Social norms prohibiting
behavior disruptive to consensus building influenced policymaker definitions of
“policy relevant.” Social norms among US conservatives prohibiting serious
discussion of climate tipping points were also apparent. Finally, perceptions
of climate change as immediate and nearby seemed related to willingness to defy
social norms around climate change communication. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:purdue.edu/oai:figshare.com:article/11398470 |
| Date | 20 December 2019 |
| Creators | Roberta A Weiner (8141388) |
| Source Sets | Purdue University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, Thesis |
| Rights | CC BY 4.0 |
| Relation | https://figshare.com/articles/Playing_Telephone_On_the_Negotiation_and_Mediation_of_Climate_Science_Communication/11398470 |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds