Creating a Place for Environmental Communication Research in Sustainability Science

Lindenfeld, Laura; Hall, Damon M.; McGreavy, Bridie; Silka, Linda; Hart, David D.

doi:10.1080/17524032.2011.640702

Cited by 79 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Clear messages accompanied with aesthetic visuals are likely to capture attention in the midst of the vast amount of information posted online, and thus attract more viewers [20]. In addition, communication efforts should be particularly effective when the message is legitimate, credible, and actionable [165,166], and when the source of communication builds trust and mutual collaboration with their audience [167]. For example, one study suggests that building an online presence or "brand" is very effective in promoting awareness and usage of an environmental program's resources [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Web 2.0 and Social Media Technologies to Foster Proenvironmental Action

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Research from a variety of disciplines suggests that online technologies (i.e., Web 2.0 and social media) have considerable potential for spurring proenvironmental action; however, relatively little work examines how to effectively capitalize on these communication and organization tools. This review paper describes the Technologies for Proenvironmental Action Model (TPAM), a conceptual framework that explicates how different functions of Web 2.0 and social media (i.e., informational, relational, and experiential) can generate and/or facilitate personal, social, and contextual pathways to environmentally responsible behaviors. As derived from the TPAM, the likelihood of achieving practical goals of increasing proenvironmental behaviors is enhanced when technological functions are matched to the different pathways to proenvironmental action. For example, the relational function of technologies, as exemplified by Social Networking Sites (SNSs), should be particularly effective in communicating social norms supportive of environmentally responsible behaviors. The TPAM is intended as a guide to develop novel approaches, research questions, and methodologies in leveraging Web 2.0 and social media technologies to promote proenvironmental action. Results will contribute to basic theory development and work in applied settings (e.g., local environmental organizations) in order to effectively communicate and organize with different segments of the population to increase sustainable behaviors. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 10621

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Web 2.0 and Social Media Technologies to Foster Proenvironmental Action

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sustainability science outputs that respondents described work to engage multiple stakeholders and their varying patterns of thought, opinion, approach, and identity in order foster a space that propagates knowledge creation designed to inform and support action (Lindenfeld et al, 2012;McGreavy et al, 2013). These outputs are recognizable in NSF's broader impact criterion (BIC) requirements, which in many ways overlap with what we are calling sustainability science outputs.…”

Section: Purpose Drivenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sustainability science, as a term, was in part established by Kates et al 's (2001) momentous paper in Science, as it launched a conceptual and analytical framework of sustainability science (Kates and Clark, 1999;McGreavy and Hart, 2017). For the context of this study, we define sustainability science as a process of inquiry that works to engage multiple stakeholders and their varying patterns of thought, opinion, approach, and identity in order to foster a space that propagates knowledge creation designed to inform and support action (Lindenfeld et al, 2012;McGreavy et al, 2013).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cocitation or Capacity-Building? Defining Success within an Interdisciplinary, Sustainability Science Team

Roche

Rickard

2017

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address gaps in knowledge and to tackle complex social-ecological problems, scientific research is moving toward studies that integrate multiple disciplines and ways of knowing to explore all parts of a system. Yet, how these efforts are being measured and how they are deemed successful is an up-and-coming and pertinent conversation within interdisciplinary research spheres. Using a grounded theory approach, this study addresses how members of a sustainability science-focused team at a Northeastern U.S. university funded by a large, National Science Foundation (NSF) grant contend with deeply normative dimensions of interdisciplinary research team success. Based on semi-structured interviews (N = 24) with researchers (e.g., faculty and graduate students) involved in this expansive, interdisciplinary team, this study uses participants' narrative accounts to progress our understanding of success on sustainability science teams and addresses the tensions arising between differing visions of success present within the current literature, and perpetuated by U.S. funding agencies like NSF. Study findings reveal that team members are forming definitions of interdisciplinary success that both align with, and depart from, those appearing in the literature. More specifically, some respondents' notions of team success appear to mirror currently recognized outcomes in traditional academic settings (i.e., purpose driven outcomes-citations, receipt of grant funding, etc.). At the same time, just as many other respondents describe success as involving elements of collaborative research not traditionally acknowledged as a forms of "success" in their own right (i.e., capacity building processes and outcomesrelationship formation, deep understandings of distinct epistemologies, etc.). Study results contribute to more open and informed discussions about how we gauge success within sustainability science collaborations, forming a foundation for appreciation and exploration of the disciplinary and normative dimensions of this work.

show abstract

“…One-way communication has been criticised as there is no probability for the communicators to be challenged for their stance and value (Grunig and Hunt, 1984). One-way transmission is also described as: "scientists decide what to study and make information available to society by placing it on a 'loading dock,' then waiting for society to pick that information up and use it" (Lindenfeld et al, 2012, p. 28), while the engaged model emphasises the engagement of stakeholders and communities in producing information and understanding, and use of local knowledge (Lindenfeld et al, 2012).…”

Section: Communication and Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%