Public Engagement with Climate Change as Scientific Citizenship: A Case Study of World Wide Views on Global Warming

Blue, Gwendolyn; Medlock, Jennifer

doi:10.1080/09505431.2014.917620

Cited by 31 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But can a “collective vision” based on the “aspirations of all citizens” really be constructed? In their analysis of a similar global visioning process conducted by the Danish government in 2009 in the run‐up to COP15 in Copenhagen, Blue and Medlock () identify the dangers of such ambition. Their careful analysis of the framings and citizen engagements used in this process concluded that it is essential to maintain diversity of meanings and plurality of visions in such dialogues: “… the more universal and standardized scientific discourse becomes for global policy purposes, the more responsive formal participatory initiatives should be to diverse public meanings” (576).…”

Section: Using Politics To Move Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

(Still) Disagreeing About Climate Change: Which Way Forward?

Hulme¹

2015

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why does climate change continue to be a forceful idea which divides people? What does this tell us about science, about culture, and about the future? Despite disagreement, how might the idea of climate change nevertheless be used creatively? In this essay I develop my investigation of these questions using four lines of argument. First, the future risks associated with human‐caused climate change are severely underdetermined by science. Scientific predictions of future climates are poorly constrained; even more so the consequences of such climates for evolving human socio‐technological and natural ecosystems. Second, I argue that to act politically in the world, people have to pass judgments on the facts of science; facts do not speak for themselves. Third, because these judgments are different, the strategic goals of policy interventions developed in response to risks associated with future climate change are inevitably multiple and conflicting. Finally, reconciling and achieving diverse goals requires political contestation. “Moving forward” on climate change then becomes a task of investing in the discursive and procedural preconditions for an agonistic politics to work constructively, to enable ways of implementing policies when people disagree.

show abstract

Section: Using Politics To Move Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

(Still) Disagreeing About Climate Change: Which Way Forward?

Hulme¹

2015

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social media have many advantages in comparison to mainstream media such as facilitating public participation in science and health communication [5, 28, 33, 50]. Also, as we have seen, social media hold the advantage of providing a platform for the public to debate, discuss, and voice their opinions and concerns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social media as a platform for health-related public debates and discussions: the Polio vaccine on Facebook

Orr

Baram‐Tsabari

Landsman

2016

Isr J Health Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSocial media can act as an important platform for debating, discussing, and disseminating information about vaccines. Our objectives were to map and describe the roles played by web-based mainstream media and social media as platforms for vaccination-related public debates and discussions during the Polio crisis in Israel in 2013: where and how did the public debate and discuss the issue, and how can these debates and discussions be characterized?MethodPolio-related coverage was collected from May 28 to October 31, 2013, from seven online Hebrew media platforms and the Facebook groups discussing the Polio vaccination were mapped and described. In addition, 2,289 items from the Facebook group “Parents talk about Polio vaccination” were analyzed for socio-demographic and thematic characteristics.ResultsThe traditional media mainly echoed formal voices from the Ministry of Health. The comments on the Facebook vaccination opposition groups could be divided into four groups: comments with individualistic perceptions, comments that expressed concerns about the safety of the OPV, comments that expressed distrust in the Ministry of Health, and comments denying Polio as a disease.In the Facebook group “Parents talk about the Polio vaccination”, an active group with various participants, 321 commentators submitted 2289 comments, with 64 % of the comments written by women. Most (92 %) people involved were parents. The comments were both personal (referring to specific situations) and general in nature (referring to symptoms or wide implications). A few (13 %) of the commentators were physicians (n = 44), who were responsible for 909 (40 %) of the items in the sample. Half the doctors and 6 % of the non-doctors wrote over 10 items each. This Facebook group formed a unique platform where unmediated debates and discussions between the public and medical experts took place.ConclusionThe comments on the social media, as well as the socio-demographic profiles of the commentators, suggest that social media is an active and versatile debate and discussion-facilitating platform in the context of vaccinations. This paper presents public voices, which should be seen as authentic (i.e. unmediated by the media or other political actors) and useful for policy making purposes. The policy implications include identifying social media as a main channel of communication during health crises, and acknowledging the voices heard on social media as authentic and useful for policy making. Human and financial resources need to be devolved specifically to social media. Health officials and experts need to be accessible on social media, and be equipped to readily provide the information, support and advice the public is looking for.

show abstract

“…Backstrand et al, 2010;Blue & Medlock, 2014;Lahsen, 2005;Pallett & Chilvers, 2013;Phillips, 2012). A contributing factor to instrumental approaches to public deliberation with climate change is the implicit privilege accorded to science in defining the contours of matters of public concern, echoing a tendency in public deliberation with issues involving science and technology more generally (Wynne, 2007).…”

Section: The Promise Of Public Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framing Climate Change for Public Deliberation: What Role for Interpretive Social Sciences and Humanities?

Blue

2015

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public deliberation is increasingly marshalled as a viable avenue for climate governance. Although climate change can be framed in multiple ways, it is widely assumed that the only relevant public meaning of climate change is that given by the natural sciences. Framing climate change as an inherently science-based public issue not only shields institutional power from scrutiny, but it can also foster an instrumental approach to public deliberation that can constrain imaginative engagement with present and future socio-environmental change. By fostering the normative value of pluralism as well as the substantive value of epistemic diversity, the interpretive social sciences and humanities can assist in opening up public deliberation on climate change such that alternative questions, neglected issues, marginalized perspectives and different possibilities can gain traction for policy purposes. Stakeholders of public deliberation are encouraged to reflect on the orchestration of the processes by which climate change is defined, solutions identified and political collectives convened.

show abstract

Public Engagement with Climate Change as Scientific Citizenship: A Case Study of World Wide Views on Global Warming

Cited by 31 publications

References 30 publications

(Still) Disagreeing About Climate Change: Which Way Forward?

(Still) Disagreeing About Climate Change: Which Way Forward?

Social media as a platform for health-related public debates and discussions: the Polio vaccine on Facebook

Framing Climate Change for Public Deliberation: What Role for Interpretive Social Sciences and Humanities?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About