The Rhetorics and Networks of Climate Change
Introduction
As the barrage of misinformation about climate change continues to accumulate online, climate science communicators frequently turn to social media platforms to release the results of their research to the public and network with each other. As both technology and misinformation continue to evolve, communicators must also adapt quickly in response. Past studies have examined how scientists communicate via social media (Cagle & Tillery, 2018; Mehlenbacher & Mehlenbacher, 2021), but few empirical studies engage the knowledge that these communicators have about public communication that is tacit—gained through experience and difficult to articulate. Such knowledge is valuable but often goes unrecognized. To uncover this tacit knowledge, I engaged in interviews with climate science communicators who share research and network on Twitter. The Rhetorics and Networks of Climate Science describes the choices these communicators made while writing, and it identifies and articulates facets of their tacit knowledge that can help other communicators more effectively communicate with public audiences as they network in online spaces.
Research Questions
My dissertation investigated three research questions:
Methodology and Methods
Network studies have indicated that strong networks of communication can be persuasive in themselves (Centola; Granovetter; Latour). As behaviors are shared across networks, the more actors (individuals, or nodes) in a network that adopt a behavior, the more likely the behavior will be adopted throughout the rest of the network. These networks form through language: people agree to ally, allude to other organizations, write contracts. In short, the choices made in networking are often writing choices.
To study these networks, my dissertation draws from both actor-network theory and assemblage theory methodologies. Both theories emerge from the idea that all things, human and nonhuman, are linked in various ways, and that those links influence the way that the network (or assemblages) act. They suggest that as actors (or nodes) within a network interact with each other, they leave discernible traces that can be studied. These traces evidence how actors express their points of view and how their networks evolved—and continue to evolve. The evolution of these networks is impacted directly by the agency and choices of the actors within them. Among these discernible traces are the writings that actors use to make those connections. As we study the writing that these actors do, we can gain a greater insight into their choices. Sometimes those choices are conscious, but just as often, they are tacit.
In order to uncover the tacit knowledge at work in networked climate science communication, I developed a mixed-methods approach. I used snowball sampling to trace the pathway of networks as they formed. Snowball sampling follows connections in a network: starting with climate scientists at Purdue and following their connections through Twitter, I traced links from the Purdue Climate Center Research Center through other organizations such as NASA’s Twitter accounts and @BlackinEnviro, a Twitter account that highlights the work of black scholars in environmental sciences, contacting communicators whose work featured through these organizations. I then engaged participants in a discourse-based interview to discuss their writing choices. These interviews invite participants to reflect on their writing with the goal of helping them articulate their skills, strategies, and knowledge. In these interviews, participants shared how they write for social media and discuss the networks that connect them with other climate science communicators. I then analyzed both the interview transcripts and the original tweets themselves to see what they revealed about the choices being made in these networked contexts.
Findings
Several findings arose from my analysis:
Takeaways
I drew four specific takeaways from my data.
Full Text of Dissertation
Click below to find the full text of my dissertation.
The Rhetorics and Networks of Climate Change
As the barrage of misinformation about climate change continues to accumulate online, climate science communicators frequently turn to social media platforms to release the results of their research to the public and network with each other. As both technology and misinformation continue to evolve, communicators must also adapt quickly in response. Past studies have examined how scientists communicate via social media (Cagle & Tillery, 2018; Mehlenbacher & Mehlenbacher, 2021), but few empirical studies engage the knowledge that these communicators have about public communication that is tacit—gained through experience and difficult to articulate. Such knowledge is valuable but often goes unrecognized. To uncover this tacit knowledge, I engaged in interviews with climate science communicators who share research and network on Twitter. The Rhetorics and Networks of Climate Science describes the choices these communicators made while writing, and it identifies and articulates facets of their tacit knowledge that can help other communicators more effectively communicate with public audiences as they network in online spaces.
Research Questions
My dissertation investigated three research questions:
- What rhetorical choices do climate science communicators make as they share their research with public audiences via online platforms?
- How do social media, networking, and other technologies influence those choices?
- What kinds of networks (with scientists, professionals, public institutions, corporations, and other entities) do these communicators create in these networked discussions?
Methodology and Methods
Network studies have indicated that strong networks of communication can be persuasive in themselves (Centola; Granovetter; Latour). As behaviors are shared across networks, the more actors (individuals, or nodes) in a network that adopt a behavior, the more likely the behavior will be adopted throughout the rest of the network. These networks form through language: people agree to ally, allude to other organizations, write contracts. In short, the choices made in networking are often writing choices.
To study these networks, my dissertation draws from both actor-network theory and assemblage theory methodologies. Both theories emerge from the idea that all things, human and nonhuman, are linked in various ways, and that those links influence the way that the network (or assemblages) act. They suggest that as actors (or nodes) within a network interact with each other, they leave discernible traces that can be studied. These traces evidence how actors express their points of view and how their networks evolved—and continue to evolve. The evolution of these networks is impacted directly by the agency and choices of the actors within them. Among these discernible traces are the writings that actors use to make those connections. As we study the writing that these actors do, we can gain a greater insight into their choices. Sometimes those choices are conscious, but just as often, they are tacit.
In order to uncover the tacit knowledge at work in networked climate science communication, I developed a mixed-methods approach. I used snowball sampling to trace the pathway of networks as they formed. Snowball sampling follows connections in a network: starting with climate scientists at Purdue and following their connections through Twitter, I traced links from the Purdue Climate Center Research Center through other organizations such as NASA’s Twitter accounts and @BlackinEnviro, a Twitter account that highlights the work of black scholars in environmental sciences, contacting communicators whose work featured through these organizations. I then engaged participants in a discourse-based interview to discuss their writing choices. These interviews invite participants to reflect on their writing with the goal of helping them articulate their skills, strategies, and knowledge. In these interviews, participants shared how they write for social media and discuss the networks that connect them with other climate science communicators. I then analyzed both the interview transcripts and the original tweets themselves to see what they revealed about the choices being made in these networked contexts.
Findings
Several findings arose from my analysis:
- Almost unilaterally, participants began interviews by stating that they didn’t do much planning for their Tweeting, and then followed that up with extensive description of the deep thought that they did in fact do. This was evidence of tacit knowledge at work.
- Participants engaged in a type of identification with potential readers. They knew who their readers were, and they specifically identified with them, writing in ways that they themselves would want to experience as readers. In thinking carefully about their readers, they carefully selected rhetorical techniques like hooks and conversational language to appeal to those readers.
- Participants consciously sought to appeal to their readers' emotions. Whether this was done through the use of humor, emotional language, or through a (nearly unexpected) level of positivity in their writing, they recognized the power of emotion to make online spaces both persuasive and into spaces where they and their readers might want to be.
Takeaways
I drew four specific takeaways from my data.
- Take control of our networks. Online science communicators (and communicators in general) can be more proactive in the formation of their networks, choosing to connect with individuals, institutions, and resources that can create a general atmosphere of collegiality, collaboration, and respect.
- Even public writing should be directed. Knowing that writing on Twitter can be seen by millions should not deter writers from writing for the specific individuals and groups that they think their writing most affects and appeals to.
- Engage with emotion. Science communication has a reputation for being dry and unemotional, but in online contexts, emotion is persuasive and even expected.
- Teach writing as a networked process: Writing is a networked process and can be learned as such. Teaching students that they are connected to other individuals, institutions, and resources and helping them foster awareness of those connections can help them improve the ways in which their writing reaches and uses those connections.
Full Text of Dissertation
Click below to find the full text of my dissertation.
The Rhetorics and Networks of Climate Change
