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, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Including mitigation and adaptation work across physical, natural, and social sciences.
We focus on ‘Western’ research norms.
Methodologies, samples, and question phrasings vary; treat findings cautiously.
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
Anderegg WRL, Prall WJ, Harold J, Schneider SH (2010) Expert credibility in climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(27):12107–12109
BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project) (2011) http://berkeleyearth.org Accessed 16.12.2011
Black R. (2011) Climate talks end with late deal. BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16124670 Accessed 16.12.2011
Blake J (1999) Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy. Local Environ 4(3):257–278
Bocking S (2004) Nature’s experts. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick
Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM (2004) Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environ Chang 14:125–136
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
Caney S (2010) Climate change and the duties of the advantaged. Crit Rev Int Sociol Polit Philos 13(1):203–228
Carrington, D., 2011. Public belief in climate change weathers storm, Guardian. Accessed 16.12.2011
Cicerone RJ (2010) Ensuring integrity in science. Science 327:624
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
Clegg S, Hardy C (1996) Representations. In: Clegg SR, Hardy C, Nord WR (eds) Handbook of organization studies. Sage, London, pp 676–708
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
Collins H, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):235–296
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
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
Davis SJ, Caldeira K (2010) Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(12):5687–5692
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
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.
Douglas AV (1996) Forty minutes with Einstein. J R Astron Soc Can 50:99–102
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
Eipper AW (1970) Pollution problems, resource policy, and the scientist. Science 169(3940):11–15
Finlay L (2002) Negotiating the swamp. Qual Res 2(2):209–230
Fischhoff B (2007) Nonpersuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: climate change. Environ Sci Technol 1(41):7205–7208
Fraser CG (2006) The Cosmos: a historical perspective. Greenwood Publishing, Westport
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
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
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
Hansen J.E (2007) Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Env Res Leters, 2
Hardy C, Phillips N, Clegg S (2001) Reflexivity in organization and management theory. Hum Relat 54(5):531–560
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
Holland R (1999) Reflexivity. Hum Relat 52(4):463–484
Horizon: Science Under Attack (2011) [TV Programme] BBC, BBC2, 24 January 2011
Høyer KG (2009) A conference tourist and his confessions. Tour Hosp Plan Dev 6(1):53–68
Hudson M (2012). Offsetting under pressure. Nature Climate Change 2 (307)
Hulme M, Mahony M (2010) Climate change: what do we know about the IPCC? Prog Phys Geogr 34(5):705–718
Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) (2011) Where do you fit in? Accessed 31.03.2012
Jasanoff S (2010) Climate science: the world is its jury. In: Transparency International (ed) Global corruption report: climate change. Routledge, London, pp 79–86
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
Jasanoff S (1996) Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Soc Stud Sci 26(2):393–418
Keller EF (2011) What are climate scientists to do? Spontaneous Gener J Hist Philos Sci 5(1):19–26
Lackey RT (2007) Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conserv Biol 21(1):12–17
Latour B (1987) Science in action. Open University Press, Milton Keynes
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
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
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
Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF (2006) Public views on climate change. Clim Chang 77(1–2):73–95
Maibach E, Leiserowitz A, Cobb S, Shank M, Cobb K.M, Gulledges J (2012) The legacy of climategate. WIRE’s Climate Change
Mann ME (2012) The hockey stick and the climate wars. Columbia University Press, New York
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
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
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
Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson NM (eds) (2006) Global environmental assessments: information and influence. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 307–339
Nature (2010) Climate of Fear. Nature 464: 141. 2010
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
Oppenheimer M, O’Neill BC, Webster M, Agrawala S (2007) The limits of consensus. Science 317:1505–1506
Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt. Bloomsbury, London
Painter J (2011) Poles apart: the international reporting of climate scepticism. Reuters institute for the study of journalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Patt A, Schröter D (2008) Perceptions of climate risk in Mozambique. Global Environ Chang 18:458–467
Patt A, Weber E (2014) Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy. WIREs Clim Chang 5:219–232
Pew Center (2009) Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming. Pew Research Center opinion. Accessed 16.12.2011
Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
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
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
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
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
Rowland FS (1993) The need for scientific communication with the public. Science 260(5114):1571–1576
Russell JL (1964) Kepler’s laws of planetary motion: 1609–1666. Br J Hist Sci 2(1):1–24
Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Polit 7:385–403
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
Science & Technology Australia. Respect the Science. http://respectthescience.org.au/about-us/ Accessed 12.03.12
Scientific American (2010) In Science We Trust. Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-science-we-trust-poll 16.12.2011
Scott JM et al (2007) Policy advocacy in science. Conserv Biol 21(1):29–35
Shapin S (1999) Rarely pure and never simple. Configurations 7:1–14
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
Seale C (1999) Quality in quantitative research. Qual Inq 5(4):465–478
Shavelson R, Towne L (2002) Scientific research in education. National Academies Press, Washington
Shove E (2003) Comfort, cleanliness and convenience. Berg, Oxford
Somerville RCJ (2010) How much should the public know about climate science? Climatic Change: 509–514
Stafford N (2010) Belief in climate change plunges. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/February/12021001.asp Accessed 16.12.2011
Stern PC (1999) Information, incentives, and pro-environmental consumer behaviour. J Consum Policy 22:461–478
Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer ‘attitude – behavioural intention’ gap. J Agric Environ Ethics 19(2):169–194
Weber EU (2010) What shapes perceptions of climate change? WIREs Clim Chang 2010:332–342
Weick K (1999) Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity. Acad Manag Rev 24:797–806
Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science. Community Genet 9:211–220
Yohe G, Oppenheimer M (2011) Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim Chang 108(4):629–639
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
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1167-3