Representing the majority and not the minority: the importance of the individual in communicating climate change

Abstract

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> This research presents three case studies, through which a creative approach to developing dialogue around climate change is outlined. By working with three distinct communities and encouraging them to discuss and write poetry about how climate change affects them, we demonstrate how such an approach might be adopted at this level. By analysing the discussions and poetry that arose out of these workshops we show how this community-level approach to communicating climate change is an essential counterpart to wider-scale quantitative research. The engagement of each community with climate change is dependent on the lived experiences of their members; a failure to recognise this results in less effective communications and can also cause communities to feel isolated and helpless. By considering the individual needs and aspirations of these communities we can support effective dialogue around the topic of climate change, and in doing so can better engender positive action against the negative effects of anthropogenic climate change.</p>

Education in a warming world: Trends, opportunities and pitfalls for institutes of higher education

“…. sense of vulnerability, removing the notions of "experts" and "non-experts, " to instead create spaces where more voices can be heard and acted upon (Illingworth et al, 2018). The inclusion of diverse perspectives and pedagogical approaches is key to transformative and empowering sustainability education.…”

Creative communication – using poetry and games to generate dialogue between scientists and nonscientists

“…By collaboratively writing and sharing poetry together in a safe and supportive environment, these hierarchies can be levelled, paving the way for a genuine exchange of ideas between different publics that have relevant and useful expertise and knowledge. These collaborative sessions [18][19][20] are successful in generating dialogue for three reasons: they give permission to nonscientific publics that they can share their expertise, they give permission to the scientists that they can display an element of pathos (i.e., an appeal to the emotions), and they create a sense of shared vulnerability.…”