“Listen to the science!”—The role of scientific knowledge for the Fridays for Future movement

Abstract

The Fridays for Future movement (FfF) has drawn a lot of public and academic attention in recent years. So far, studies investigated the organization, mobilization, and motives of the movement from different perspectives as well as the relevance of science for FfF. Mostly from an external point of view researchers looked at the types of science communication and its reception by the audience (i.e., framing theory). In this paper, we combine theories of science communication with the resource mobilization approach in social movement studies and thereby develop a theoretical framework for the analysis of the use of scientific knowledge by climate movements. We focus on the resource mobilization theory (RMT) and the notion of activists as alternative science communicators. RMT emphasizes the role of resources and organization to explain the success of social movements. Specifically, we regard legitimacy as a moral resource and analyze the importance of communication of climate scientific knowledge for FfF as a political movement. We argue that a climate movement like FfF relies on climate scientific knowledge which serves as a moral resource when climate activists refer to it to legitimate their claims. Empirically, we draw on a survey of more than 500 FfF activists in Germany, that was conducted as a mixed method study in 2020 and 2021. Our objective is to close a gap on the relevance of science for FfF activists from the inner perspective. Following the research question “How and why is scientific knowledge being used by FfF activists to mobilize people?” the findings indicate a rather strategic use of scientific knowledge as an end in itself within the movement. Unsurprisingly, we see that individual strategic use of scientific knowledge within the movement corresponds with the belief that FfF should include scientific knowledge in the general communication strategy of FfF. Moreover, our data show that activists overwhelmingly derive their goals from scientific knowledge and reject the idea that science could be used imprecisely just as an instrument to attain their goals. These learnings shed light on the question of whether science is used as a moral resource within climate movements like FfF.

The importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism

“…Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization. In fact, there is just a thin line between the use and misuse of scientific certainty and uncertainty, and there is evidence for strategic and selective communication of scientific information for climate action 6 . (Non-)specialist activists often adopt scientific arguments as a source of moral legitimation for their movements 6 , which can be radical and destructive rather than rational and constructive.…”

“…In fact, there is just a thin line between the use and misuse of scientific certainty and uncertainty, and there is evidence for strategic and selective communication of scientific information for climate action 6 . (Non-)specialist activists often adopt scientific arguments as a source of moral legitimation for their movements 6 , which can be radical and destructive rather than rational and constructive. Unrestricted faith in scientific knowledge is, however, problematic because science is neither entitled to absolute truth nor ethical authority 7 .…”

Another world is possible? – Climate movements’ bounded politicization between science and politics

“…They identified particular changes, including a return to more a state-centric understanding of climate politics, less focus on global climate justice frames, relatively a-political stances and a focus on science (De Moor et al, 2021;Haunss et al, 2023). So far, only few studies have focused on the understanding and integration of climate science in NCMs discourse (Buzogány and Scherhaufer, 2022;Soßdorf and Burgi, 2022;Rödder and Pavenstädt, 2023;Thierry, 2023). NCMs would tend towards strengthening the (moral) authority of science, yet they also make selective use of science, and re-frame scientific visions through simplification, dramatization, and emotional or moral appeals.…”

Housing activists' science communication: online practices as contextual and reflexive

“…While in some cases activists make use of knowledge from their own research and/or that based on alternative epistemic norms [Ottinger, 2022;Rabeharisoa et al, 2014], the mobilisation of mainstream research and expertise continues to be central to much communication. Studies have indicated that activist engagement with science can be framed as 'strategic' [Soßdorf & Burgi, 2022]: while familiarity with the state of the art in relevant fields is presented as important, science may be primarily "used as a 'quiet' resource to prove that one is a serious opponent" [Fähnrich, 2018, p. 13] or is acquired in "indirect" and "idiosyncratic" ways [Unander & Sørensen, 2020]. Such work thus suggests that the epistemic practices of activists involve the assembly of relevant knowledge from various sources [Unander & Sørensen, 2020] and its use to legitimate or publicise their positions [Rohden, 2021;Soßdorf & Burgi, 2022].…”

“…Studies have indicated that activist engagement with science can be framed as 'strategic' [Soßdorf & Burgi, 2022]: while familiarity with the state of the art in relevant fields is presented as important, science may be primarily "used as a 'quiet' resource to prove that one is a serious opponent" [Fähnrich, 2018, p. 13] or is acquired in "indirect" and "idiosyncratic" ways [Unander & Sørensen, 2020]. Such work thus suggests that the epistemic practices of activists involve the assembly of relevant knowledge from various sources [Unander & Sørensen, 2020] and its use to legitimate or publicise their positions [Rohden, 2021;Soßdorf & Burgi, 2022]. At the same time, newer protest movements (such as Fridays for Future or Extinction Rebellion) in particular often incorporate a deep respect for science, to the extent that they frame themselves as 'amplifiers' of scientific knowledge and present a 'deficit model' of existing, mainstream science communication [Rödder & Pavenstädt, 2023;Rohden, 2021].…”