Climate change research and credibility: balancing tensions across professional, personal, and public domains

Climatic Change volume 125, pages 149–162 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

For research to positively impact society, it must be scientifically credible. The researcher plays a key role in establishing and maintaining credibility, particularly in the climate change field. This paper provides a structure for relating the credibility of researchers themselves to that of research outputs, analysing ‘researcher credibility’ with reference to three overlapping domains: personal, professional, and public. The researcher’s role in each domain is considered in a reflexive way, examining the research process and the researcher’s actions. Varied definitions of researcher credibility and possible means to achieve it in each domain are discussed, drawing on relevant cross-disciplinary literature. We argue that, in certain contexts, the actions of researchers can have a direct impact on the credibility of their research. There is scope for broadening researcher credibility to include more public-oriented behaviours. This, however, may be contentious and problematic: potential conflicts exist between public action and professional credibility, with the latter usually taking precedence. By contrast, though personal action/inaction rarely affects professional credibility, researchers’ personal behaviours may influence public perceptions of research credibility and the importance of addressing climate change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Including mitigation and adaptation work across physical, natural, and social sciences.

  2. 2.

    We focus on ‘Western’ research norms.

  3. 3.

    Methodologies, samples, and question phrasings vary; treat findings cautiously.

  4. 4.

    This applies across political divides: scholarship by ‘climate sceptics’ has been criticised by non-‘sceptical’ academics as influenced by authors’ political biases (Lewandowsky, 2011), and researchers with political loyalties (backed by well-resourced industry/political actors with media acumen) have attacked/misrepresented research accepted by their peers (Oreskes & Conway, 2010).

References

  1. Anderegg WRL, Prall WJ, Harold J, Schneider SH (2010) Expert credibility in climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(27):12107–12109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project) (2011) http://berkeleyearth.org Accessed 16.12.2011

  3. Black R. (2011) Climate talks end with late deal. BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16124670 Accessed 16.12.2011

  4. Blake J (1999) Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy. Local Environ 4(3):257–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bocking S (2004) Nature’s experts. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM (2004) Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environ Chang 14:125–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brito L, Stafford Smith M (2012). State of the Planet Declaration. Planet Under Pressure Conference. http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/state_of_planet_declaration.pdf

  8. Caney S (2010) Climate change and the duties of the advantaged. Crit Rev Int Sociol Polit Philos 13(1):203–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carrington, D., 2011. Public belief in climate change weathers storm, Guardian. Accessed 16.12.2011

  10. Cicerone RJ (2010) Ensuring integrity in science. Science 327:624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science (CFRS) of the ICSU (2010). Science Communication. http://www.icsu.org/publications/cfrs-statements/science-communication/ Accessed 16.12.2011

  12. Clegg S, Hardy C (1996) Representations. In: Clegg SR, Hardy C, Nord WR (eds) Handbook of organization studies. Sage, London, pp 676–708

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2007) The nature of inquiry – setting the field. In: Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (eds) Research methods in education. Routledge, New York, pp 1–47

    Google Scholar 

  14. Collins H, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):235–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. CSEPP (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy), (2009) Ensuring the integrity, accessibility, and stewardship of research data in the digital age. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dasgupta P (2000) Economic progress and the idea of social capital. In: Dasgupta P, Serageldin I (eds) Social capital: a multifaceted perspective. World Bank, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  17. Davis SJ, Caldeira K (2010) Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(12):5687–5692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dawidoff N (2009) The Civil Heretic, New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?sq=Freeman%20Dyson>Accessed 16.12.2011

  19. Ding D, Maibach EW, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2011) “Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement.” Nat Clim Chang 1:462–466.

  20. Douglas AV (1996) Forty minutes with Einstein. J R Astron Soc Can 50:99–102

    Google Scholar 

  21. Drajem M (2011) NASA’s Hansen Arrested Outside White House at Pipeline Protest. Bloomberg News, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-29/nasa-s-hansen-arrested-outside-white-house-at-pipeline-protest.html Accessed 16.12.2011

  22. Eipper AW (1970) Pollution problems, resource policy, and the scientist. Science 169(3940):11–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Finlay L (2002) Negotiating the swamp. Qual Res 2(2):209–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fischhoff B (2007) Nonpersuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: climate change. Environ Sci Technol 1(41):7205–7208

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fraser CG (2006) The Cosmos: a historical perspective. Greenwood Publishing, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  26. Freedman A (2009) Science Group Erred Giving Hansen Top Honor. Washington Post http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/01/it_normally_does_not_make.html Accessed 02.03.2012

  27. Gillis J, Kaufman L (2011) New Trove of Stolen E-Mails from Climate Scientist is Released. The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/science/earth/new-trove-of-stolen-e-mails-from-climate-scientists-is-released.html Accessed 31.03.2012

  28. Goldenberg S (2012) Climate scientist Peter Gleick admits he leaked Heartland Institute documents, The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-leaked-heartland-institute-documents Accessed 2.03.2012

  29. Hansen J.E (2007) Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Env Res Leters, 2

  30. Hardy C, Phillips N, Clegg S (2001) Reflexivity in organization and management theory. Hum Relat 54(5):531–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hart PS, Nisbet EC (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun Res 39(6):701–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Holland R (1999) Reflexivity. Hum Relat 52(4):463–484

    Google Scholar 

  33. Horizon: Science Under Attack (2011) [TV Programme] BBC, BBC2, 24 January 2011

  34. Høyer KG (2009) A conference tourist and his confessions. Tour Hosp Plan Dev 6(1):53–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hudson M (2012). Offsetting under pressure. Nature Climate Change 2 (307)

  36. Hulme M, Mahony M (2010) Climate change: what do we know about the IPCC? Prog Phys Geogr 34(5):705–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) (2011) Where do you fit in? Accessed 31.03.2012

  39. Jasanoff S (2010) Climate science: the world is its jury. In: Transparency International (ed) Global corruption report: climate change. Routledge, London, pp 79–86

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jasanoff S (2005) Judgment under seige: the three-body problem of expert legitimacy. In: Maasen S, Weingart P (eds) Democratization of expertise? Springer, Dordrecht, pp 209–224

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Jasanoff S (1996) Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Soc Stud Sci 26(2):393–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Keller EF (2011) What are climate scientists to do? Spontaneous Gener J Hist Philos Sci 5(1):19–26

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lackey RT (2007) Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conserv Biol 21(1):12–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Latour B (1987) Science in action. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  45. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G (2013) How Americans communicate about global warming in April 2013. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

  46. Lewandowsky S (2011) Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review, http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-denial-and-the-abuse-of-peer-review-1552 Accessed 24.11.2011

  47. Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:2098–2109

  48. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF (2006) Public views on climate change. Clim Chang 77(1–2):73–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Maibach E, Leiserowitz A, Cobb S, Shank M, Cobb K.M, Gulledges J (2012) The legacy of climategate. WIRE’s Climate Change

  50. Mann ME (2012) The hockey stick and the climate wars. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  51. Marx SM, Weber EU, Orlovea BS, Leiserowitz A, Krantz DH, Roncoli C, Phillips J (2007) Communication and mental processes. Global Environ Chang 17:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. McCright A, Dunlap R, Xiao C (2013) Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Clim Chang 119(2):511–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. McGowan E (2011) Climate scientist willing to face arrest at tar sands pipeline protest. Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/18/climate-scientist-tar-sands-pipeline-protest/print Accessed 31 March 2012

  54. Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson NM (eds) (2006) Global environmental assessments: information and influence. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 307–339

    Google Scholar 

  55. Nature (2010) Climate of Fear. Nature 464: 141. 2010

  56. Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2010) Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2010-results/stb-ashe-2010.pdf Accessed 31.03.2012

  57. Oppenheimer M, O’Neill BC, Webster M, Agrawala S (2007) The limits of consensus. Science 317:1505–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt. Bloomsbury, London

    Google Scholar 

  59. Painter J (2011) Poles apart: the international reporting of climate scepticism. Reuters institute for the study of journalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  60. Patt A, Schröter D (2008) Perceptions of climate risk in Mozambique. Global Environ Chang 18:458–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Patt A, Weber E (2014) Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy. WIREs Clim Chang 5:219–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pew Center (2009) Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming. Pew Research Center opinion. Accessed 16.12.2011

  63. Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. Price A et al (2009) Statement from the UK science community, 10 December 2009. Met Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/science-community-statement Accessed 16.12.2011

  65. Research Concordat (2008) The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers. http://www.vitae.ac.uk/policy-practice/505181/Concordat-to-Support-the-Career-Development-of-Researchers.html Accessed 31.03.2012

  66. Revkin AC (2009a) Weather Mavens Honor Climate Maven. New York Times http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/weather-mavens-honor-climate-maven/ Accessed 16.12.2011

  67. Revkin AC (2009b) Hansen of NASA Arrested in Coal Country. New York Times http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/hansen-of-nasa-arrested-in-coal-country/ Accessed 16.12.2011

  68. Rowland FS (1993) The need for scientific communication with the public. Science 260(5114):1571–1576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Russell JL (1964) Kepler’s laws of planetary motion: 1609–1666. Br J Hist Sci 2(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Polit 7:385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Sarewitz D (2010) Science won’t tell us what to do about climate change, but it can make the controversy worse. Slate Magazine. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2010/03/the_trouble_with_climate_science.html Accessed 16.12.2011

  72. Science & Technology Australia. Respect the Science. http://respectthescience.org.au/about-us/ Accessed 12.03.12

  73. Scientific American (2010) In Science We Trust. Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-science-we-trust-poll 16.12.2011

  74. Scott JM et al (2007) Policy advocacy in science. Conserv Biol 21(1):29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Shapin S (1999) Rarely pure and never simple. Configurations 7:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Shapin S (2004) The way we trust now. In: Hoodbhoy P, Glaser D, Shapin S (eds) Trust me, i’m a scientist. The British Council, London, pp 42–63

    Google Scholar 

  77. Seale C (1999) Quality in quantitative research. Qual Inq 5(4):465–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Shavelson R, Towne L (2002) Scientific research in education. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  79. Shove E (2003) Comfort, cleanliness and convenience. Berg, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  80. Somerville RCJ (2010) How much should the public know about climate science? Climatic Change: 509–514

  81. Stafford N (2010) Belief in climate change plunges. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/February/12021001.asp Accessed 16.12.2011

  82. Stern PC (1999) Information, incentives, and pro-environmental consumer behaviour. J Consum Policy 22:461–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer ‘attitude – behavioural intention’ gap. J Agric Environ Ethics 19(2):169–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Weber EU (2010) What shapes perceptions of climate change? WIREs Clim Chang 2010:332–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Weick K (1999) Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity. Acad Manag Rev 24:797–806

    Google Scholar 

  86. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science. Community Genet 9:211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Yohe G, Oppenheimer M (2011) Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim Chang 108(4):629–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The discussions inspiring this paper took place at the Tyndall Researchers’ Network meeting, Newcastle University, September 2011; we thank those who made the meeting possible. We also thank John Turnpenny, Martin Mahony, Maria Sharmina, Lauren Roffey, Caroline Stuiver, Kevin Anderson, and the UEA 3S Reading Group who participated in early discussions and/or offered helpful comments on earlier drafts.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Queens’ College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB39ET, UK

    Stella Nordhagen

  2. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, NR47TJ, UK

    Stella Nordhagen, Dan Calverley, Laura O’Keefe & Xinfang Wang

  3. School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester, M139PL, Manchester, UK

    Dan Calverley, Laura O’Keefe & Xinfang Wang

  4. Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, CB11PT, UK

    Chris Foulds

Authors
  1. Stella Nordhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dan Calverley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris Foulds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura O’Keefe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xinfang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stella Nordhagen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nordhagen, S., Calverley, D., Foulds, C. et al. Climate change research and credibility: balancing tensions across professional, personal, and public domains. Climatic Change 125, 149–162 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1167-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Research Output
  • Public Engagement
  • Climate Research Unit
  • Public Credibility
  • Climate Change Research