Sociological Perspectives on Earth System Modeling

Abstract

How can we understand climate change from a sociological perspective? In asking this question, we assume that Sociology has something to contribute to such an enterprise. The argument that we put forward is twofold: We argue that Sociology provides a much needed alternative to two dominant approaches that have influenced public discourse, behaviorist theories, mainly employed in Economics, and a belief in the centrality of science in policy making ("evidence first"), mainly entertained by physical scientists. We critically discuss both approaches, showing the limits of behaviorism and the linear model of policy making and provide an alternative framework, which emphasizes the role of social action, of organizations, and of structural differences between different social worlds. We then apply our framework to assess the role of evidence at the climate science-policy interface and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a boundary organization in particular. We argue that science and politics follow different logics and that the IPCC is simultaneously both more political and less policy relevant than its self-description as "policy-relevant, never policy prescriptive" tries to make us believe. We conclude that a depoliticization of politics by IPCC expert advice and a politicization of climate science occur simultaneously and mutually reinforce one another. The result is a lack of progress in climate policy as science has taken center stage but is unable to offer political solutions.

Organisation matters: towards an organisational sociology of science communication

“…It is the main aim of the SMC to objectify public debates on scientific topics with the voice of science, much in line with the heavily criticised yet happily alive so-called linear model of science policy advice (Beck, 2011; Pielke, 2007; Sarewitz, 2000; Jasanoff and Wynne, 1998). The wish to speak truth to power (Kirchner, 2017) or to provide maps for political navigation (Edenhofer and Minx, 2014) while being largely unaffected by politicisation generally underlies scientists and science institutions' engagement at the science-policy interface (Grundmann and Rödder, 2019). To speak with one voice for science may only be achieved by not asking all experts.…”

A desire for authoritative science? How citizens’ informational needs and epistemic beliefs shaped their views of science, news, and policymaking in the COVID-19 pandemic

“… Nelson and Vucetich, 2009 ; Pregernig, 2014 ). In various public conflicts over the environment, science, and technology, philosophers and sociologists of science have observed a naïve, that is, “linear,” view of the link between scientific knowledge and political decision making among members of the public, political decision makers, and scientists ( Grundmann and Rödder, 2019 ; Pielke, 2004 ; Sarewitz, 2004 ). According to this view, political action can be derived from scientific knowledge in an unambiguous way, and scientific knowledge can make particular policy programs compelling ( Grundmann and Rödder, 2019 ; Pielke, 2004 ).…”

Ontologies of climate change

“…When we talked at their workplaces, many of my interlocutors were so caught up in their programming work, their simulations, and their fascination with doing “hard science” that they hardly realized they were building “global warming worlds” that encompassed themselves, there in their office spaces. Caught in these routines, they neglected to reflect on how other social fields, such as politics, media, and the economy, shape how society defines climate change and thereby the parameters they select (Grundmann and Rödder 2019; Hulme 2016).…”