The Rhetorics and Networks of Climate Science
IntroductionAs 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 QuestionsMy dissertation investigated four research questions:
By investigating these questions, not only can we discover the choices that are made, but we can see how those choices are influenced by surrounding webs of people, institutions, and technologies, and how individual communicators make tacit choices in these contexts.
Methodology and MethodsNetwork 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.
TakeawaysMy analysis revealed several key takeaways:
My dissertation adds to the variety of important mixed methods approaches for studying networks (Baniya 2022; Read and Swarts, 2011; Spinuzzi, 2008). By tracing networks and interviewing actors within those networks, we can get a stronger sense of not only their expansiveness, but also the tacit choices that go into their creation and evolution. Misinformation and doubt may proliferate online, but at the same time, we face record heat, more powerful hurricanes, and other extreme weather events. A stronger understanding of networks of climate science can help us better communicate how we can mitigate our changing climate. These strategies are likely useful beyond climate science. Researchers in medical science, agriculture, engineering, and other areas that share their research publicly could adapt the choices made in climate science contexts for their own fields, helping them better network and communicate in the face of their own unique challenges.
Research QuestionsMy dissertation investigated four 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?
- What can be learned by mapping the nodes of the network that this research traces?
By investigating these questions, not only can we discover the choices that are made, but we can see how those choices are influenced by surrounding webs of people, institutions, and technologies, and how individual communicators make tacit choices in these contexts.
Methodology and MethodsNetwork 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.
TakeawaysMy analysis revealed several key takeaways:
- 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.
- Networking is both a result and a purpose: when communicators build networks, they see it not only as a result of their writing, but also as a choice that they make when they write. Communicators acknowledge that their very purpose for writing was often to thank collaborators or raise awareness of new scholars in the field, and they recognized that in so doing they were broadening their network itself.
- Communicators are aware of their differing audiences and contexts, and they write for those audiences and context. They particularly focused on local audiences, knowing that it is at the local level where change can happen. They also emphasized positivity in their posts, in spite of the often “doom and gloom” outlook of climate change. More than one communicator noted that being negative can turn audiences away.
- Mapping these networks can show connections that aren’t otherwise evident. Participants that I found from entirely different sources ended up knowing other participants, without my having any knowledge that they were connected beforehand. Our very networks may be stronger than we think.
My dissertation adds to the variety of important mixed methods approaches for studying networks (Baniya 2022; Read and Swarts, 2011; Spinuzzi, 2008). By tracing networks and interviewing actors within those networks, we can get a stronger sense of not only their expansiveness, but also the tacit choices that go into their creation and evolution. Misinformation and doubt may proliferate online, but at the same time, we face record heat, more powerful hurricanes, and other extreme weather events. A stronger understanding of networks of climate science can help us better communicate how we can mitigate our changing climate. These strategies are likely useful beyond climate science. Researchers in medical science, agriculture, engineering, and other areas that share their research publicly could adapt the choices made in climate science contexts for their own fields, helping them better network and communicate in the face of their own unique challenges.
