Climate Change at the Center: The Public Communication of CICERO Center for International Climate Research

(1)

Climate Change at the Center

The Public Communication of CICERO Center for International Climate Research

Hedda Susanne Molland

Master thesis in Culture, Environment and Sustainability

Centre for Development and Environment UNIVERSITY OF OSLO

30.11.2017

(2)

II

Climate Change at the Center: The Public Communication of CICERO Center for International Climate Research

http://www.duo.uio.no/

Print: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo

(3)

III

Abstract

This a study of how the researchers and staff of CICERO – Center for International Climate Research in Norway, participated in public discourse as expert commentators on the

UNFCCC climate negotiations and the reality of anthropogenic climate change. In the Norwegian context CICERO is a visible actor in public discourse on climate change.

Furthermore, climate researchers and research organizations such as CICERO produce information essential for how we address climate change. With a foundation in research that offers the Center epistemic authority, the Center has both power and responsibility. I discuss the roles of CICERO and how people at the Center communicated boundaries and

connections between the Center, the climate research community, the Center’s lay audience, civil society and politics.

Framed by the history of CICERO and climate research, the main part of my study is a critical discourse analysis of CICERO’s public communications, i.e. popular articles, op-eds and interviews, in the time of the Conference of the Parties 15 in 2009, and the Conference of the Parties 21 in 2015. I find that the Center strongly identified with the climate research

community. However, the Center also presented a willingness to collaborate with government and international political decision-makers, as long as the Center perceived these groups to be ready to address climate change. Furthermore, CICERO represented state leaders and other political decision-makers as the most important actors in the face of climate change. Civil society, conversely, was mostly left out of the Center’s commentary, apart from a few references and a temporary willingness to debate climate skeptics in 2009. Thus, the Center made civil society appear irrelevant for climate research and for how we address climate change, apart from as an extension of government-led initiatives. I also find that CICERO presented an ambivalent attitude towards their lay audience who were largely represented as passive recipients of information, which further served to underscore the passivity of civil society.

The analytical traditions that informed my analysis are intellectual history as well as the overlapping fields of science and technology studies and the public communication of science and technology. My primary methodology was critical discourse analysis. For background information I performed semi-structured, open-ended interviews with seven people at CICERO.

(4)

IV

Acknowledgements

When a group of politicians name a research center CICERO, you almost expect there to be a pun somewhere. In what way does contemporary climate research resemble a Roman orator? I will not answer this question here, but will say that there is indeed a subtle pun to be found for the reader of this thesis.

I would like to express my deep gratitude to my informants at CICERO, and especially Christian Bjørnæs who assisted me on multiple occasions. Though there is some criticism to be found in this thesis, I would like to underscore my appreciation of work you do and the time you all took out of your busy schedules to answer my questions.

I would like to thank my supervisor, Nina Witoszek, whose sharp pen and extensive knowledge have guided my work. I would also like to thank all the other helpful people at SUM and especially Anne-Line Sandåker and Gudrun C.E. Helland, for showing me that it is possible to feel even more at home at the University of Oslo, than I already did.

Moreover I would like to thank Helge Jordheim, Einar Wigen and other people in the Synchronizing the World project at the University of Oslo. Though the project did not relate directly to my research, I am ever grateful for your suggestions and enthusiasm for me and my studies, and for giving me the opportunity to work with such inspiring scholars. In that regard, I would also thank the Science Studies Colloquium at the University of Oslo for granting me a scholarship.

In addition, I thank my parents, for their bright insights and faith in me, and the rest of my family for tolerating both my absence and my enthusiasm for things far from their minds. On that note, I want to thank Jenny for a forever friendship, Anita for helping me keep all the pieces together, Guro for listening to my rants and giving some much needed advice on a few chapters, and Ravn for being the best climbing buddy.

In conclusion, I want to thank my partner, Henrik, for being rock solid and for reminding me how to be silly when I forget.

(5)

V

List of figures

Figure 1: Adapted model of Fairclough’s three-dimensional conception of discourse as

embedded in society (1992, 73). ... 26 Figure 2: Frequency of mentions of keywords related to CICERO and COP 15 in Norwegian media during September 2009 to April 2010. ... 56 Figure 3: Frequency of references to keywords related to CICERO and COP 21 in Norwegian media during September 2015 to April 2016. ... 85

(9)

IX

List of abbreviations and acronyms

APEC: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation AR4: IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report AR5: IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report CDM: Clean Development Mechanism

CICEP: Center for International Climate and Energy Policy

CICERO: Center for International Climate and Environment Research – Oslo COP: A Conference of the Parties

CRU: The Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia EU: The European Union

FrP: The Progress Party of Norway (Fremskrittspartiet) GHG: Greenhouse gas

IMO: International Meteorological Organization (1873-1951) INDC: Intended Nationally Determined Contributions

IPCC: United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

NDC: Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs after the Paris Agreement was ratified) NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

NIVA: The Norwegian Institute for Water Research

NRK: Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (Norsk rikskringkasting) NTB: Norwegian News Agency (Norsk Telegrambyrå)

PCST: Public Communication of Science and Technology RCN: The Research Council of Norway

SPM: IPCC Summary for Policymakers SSB: Statistics Norway

STS: Science and Technology Studies SV: Socialist Left Party of Norway UiO: University of Oslo, Norway

UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VG: Verdens gang (Norwegian tabloid newspaper)

WMO: World Meteorological Organization

(10)

X

(11)

XI

But science has not always had its niche,

nor are the boundaries of its present niche permanent. The intellectual ecosystem has with time been carved up into

“separate” institutional and professional niches through continuing processes of boundary-work designed to achieve an apparent differentiation of goals, methods,

capabilities and substantive expertise.

– Thomas Gieryn, 1983

(12)

XII

(13)

1

1 Introduction

In 1990, a small research center was established to address a large problem. Throughout the 1980s the rising concern that humans might be causing climate change had spread from the scientists workrooms to the corridors of power, both in international politics (Miller 2004) and in Norway (Asdal 2011). In 1988 the United Nations founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific and intergovernmental assessment body. Moreover, the United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, where the nations of the world instituted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was a breakthrough in terms of civil society activity in international decision-making (Corell and Betsill 2001). In the midst of all this, CICERO Center for International Climate Research emerged.

Thus, in the span of five years, climate change made the fields of research, politics and civil society intersect. As an interdisciplinary Center on the still emergent research field of climate change, CICERO, played a key role in legitimizing the emergence of a Norwegian position on climate politics in preparation for international climate

negotiations (Nilsen 2001, 133-137). However, it would take another decade for climate change to fully enter public discourse. CICERO was mandated from the beginning to communicate on climate change, but it was not until the early 2000s that climate change became a theme in Norwegian media (Tjernshaugen et al. 2011). And as this topic entered the Norwegian public consciousness, so did CICERO.

At the turn of the millennium, researchers giving public expert commentary on climate change were for the most part unheard of in Norway; today it is an established field in the public discourse, a field that is dominated by one small research center: CICERO.

The Center has taken on many public roles. Overtly and directly, the CEOs, researchers and public communicators at this Center have communicated the difference between their own contributions, and that of others groups in Norwegian public discourse. At the same time, people at the Center have bounded off the Center’s territory of expertise and paroled the limits. Why? As they maintain the difference between the Center’s

contributions and that of others, they uphold their credibility and legitimize their role in public deliberation on climate change (Gieryn 1995).

(14)

2

In the footsteps of Thomas F. Gieryn we may think of discourse as mapping society. On this map we can identify research as a territory, bordering on other social territories, such as civil society and politics. In this study I examine the history and public roles of CICERO by analyzing how the Center’s territory of public expertise has been defined and how it has evolved in the face of history. Moreover, climate change is an issue that makes research, politics and civil society meet. I therefore discuss how CICERO’s many public roles have changed in the public convergence of politics, civil society and the Center. In short, my ambition with this study is to strengthen understanding of how a small research center can be an important part of our public history and society.

My rationale: Why a climate research center?

1.1

A new and productive angle to examine in the public communication of climate change is to look at a research center such as CICERO. Especially interesting are the roles of CICERO and how the Center has constituted a field for themselves¹ in public discourse.

As I will show in this study, CICERO has, throughout their history, been a hybrid with multiple roles in society related to different groups. With this study I present insights into how an influential organization contributes to Norwegian discourse on climate change. Moreover, as the Norwegian climate discourse partakes in a wider international discourse, my findings may also shed light on this context.

The chief characteristics of CICERO are research and the communication of knowledge on climate change to society. The Norwegian Ministry of Environment stated in 2001 that CICERO had a national task of public dissemination of climate research, a

statement reiterated in 2007 (Miljøverndepartementet 2001, 201; 2007, 58). As experts in public discourse, the Center affects policy-making and public understanding. With a foundation in research that offers the Center epistemic authority, they contribute to construction of social reality (Peters 2008, 132). For this reason they have both power and responsibility in public discourse. Furthermore, climate researchers and research organizations such as CICERO produce information essential for how we address climate change. Therefore, a study of public communication on climate change by an

1 I refer to the Center with third person plural pronoun in recognition that they are a group of people. I elaborate on the justification for this in 2.4.

(15)

3

actor such as the Center can provide key information on decisions made and actions taken in politics and civil society.

With this study I provide insights into how research centers as public communicators can both inform and be informed by their historical context. As a study of the way a hybrid climate research center operates as a public communicator, my analysis provides insight into how such communication is affected by tensions, challenges and

opportunities for communication and epistemic authority. I also present insights on the implications of the roles of CICERO for other groups in society, especially political decision-makers and civil society. In this regard, my analysis contributes to an

elaboration of theories of separation and connection between climate research and other sectors of society, especially as these relationships regard public expert communication on climate change. The study can therefore increase our understanding of the social role of research and the part such centers play in our society.

Objective and research questions 1.2

As climate politics, society and our understanding of climate change have changed, so has CICERO. In this study I therefore examine their roles in public discourse

throughout their history, with a particular focus on their public communication in November and December 2009 and November and December 2015 as these were important moments for the Center. I approach this topic with analysis of how the Center maintained distinctions between research and other parts of society, how they connected with their audience and related to other actors in society, and what the implications of these practices were. Furthermore, these issues regard how the Center presented their own expertise and how they addressed the expertise of other groups. With this in mind I pose the following research question:

 What roles has CICERO had as a research center in Norwegian public discourse on climate change?

My underlying perspective is historical, coupled with an analytical framework that combines science and technology studies and the public communication of science and technology. The premise of my study is that public expert commentary on climate change discourse and climate politics, shapes and is shaped by its historical context.

(16)

4

This includes, but is not limited to: the experience of separation and/or integration of climate change research in society; views on authority, expertise and identity, including research specialization; and shared and diverse conceptualizations of climate change and ways to address it.

I use the methodology of critical discourse analysis to study how CICERO discursively constituted boundaries, by which I mean demarcations made between research and other social practices to communicate that research has a unique and separate standing in society. Moreover, I study how they established connection, perhaps even exchange, between the Center and their lay audience, civil society and political decision-makers.

Boundaries and connections must be discussed together, as they to some degree are two sides of the same coin; both represent a kind of relationship.

I present three sub-questions to articulate my main research question in detail. Firstly, I seek to answer how CICERO maintained the boundaries between their own practices and other social domains in public discourse. I do this by asking:

 How has CICERO constituted their identity in public discourse by setting boundaries between themselves and other social actors such as political decision-makers and civil society?

Secondly, I seek to answer in what ways CICERO despite, or by means of these boundaries, established connections with different parts of society. I do this with a particular focus on their readers, civil society and politics. I therefore ask:

 How has CICERO established connection with their readers and other sectors of society in communicating around or through these boundaries?

In addition, in order to address the wider context CICERO’s communication practices partake in, I ask:

 What are the implications of CICERO’s communication practices for other actors in the Norwegian climate change discourse?

These three questions address communicative challenges and opportunities of research demarcation, identification, and boundaries, as well as boundary-crossing

communication and the relationship between research, politics and civil society. The

(17)

5

methodology of discourse analysis opens up for perspectives different from those of CICERO. I therefore incorporate a wider context of actors and forces into my analysis.

Nevertheless, my main focus remains on the public communication of the Center.

The context of my analysis 1.3

Norway presents a remarkable context because of its mixed interests regarding climate change. On the one hand, the country is one of the world’s largest exporters of oil and gas. Its small population of slightly more than 5 million inhabitants (as of November 2017), as well as the country’s governments, have depended on petro-industry for its income since the 1970s. On the other hand, climate science is established in Norway, as exemplified by CICERO, and Norwegian researchers have contributed to the

conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These conclusions have also been accepted by the Norwegian government since the Panel published their first assessment report in 1990. From 2003, climate change has

increasingly become a part of the Norwegian environment debate (Tjernshaugen et al.

2011) with much focus on whether Norway should reduce its emissions through domestic cuts or pay for such cuts abroad (Hovden and Lindseth 2004). From 2009 onwards, there was increased focus on the nation’s international contributions to climate change mitigation in Norwegian media (Johannessen 2014).

CICERO’s leaders, the state of research, political needs and public discourse have changed the Center. When the Center began their work in 1990, the Norwegian prime minister and the Center’s first CEO intended to use the interdisciplinary research to develop arguments Norway could bring to United Nations (UN) negotiations in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (Nilsen 2001, 134-137). Towards the 2000s the Center assumed a more publicly visible role as a commentator on, among other things, the annual Conferences of the Parties (COP) of the UNFCCC, which began with that meeting in Rio in 1992.

The COPs have increasingly become events that draw attention to climate change in the media across the world (McNatt et al. 2017). In later years, two meetings garnered particular attention abroad and in Norway.² The Conference of the Parties in

Copenhagen in 2009, abbreviated somewhat confusingly “COP 15”, and the Conference

2 According to the media archive and analysis tool Retriever. Search words “klimatoppmøte OR COP OR UNFCCC”.

(18)

6

of the Parties in Paris in 2015, abbreviated “COP 21”, were the focal points of two attempts at a global regime on climate change. As I will show in this study, in line with these events, CICERO increased their visibility in the Norwegian public sphere, in November and December 2009 and November and December 2015. Their public communication in these periods was of particular importance for the Center and it seems likely that it had added impacts on the Norwegian public. I therefore chose to focus much of my analysis on these two periods.

There are two recurring themes in CICERO’s communication practices during these months in 2009 and 2015 that are of specific interest: CICERO’s commentary on the COPs and the Center’s contribution to debates on the reality of climate change,

anthropogenic or otherwise. In this study I present close analysis of some representative texts from the Center on these two themes. I chose these themes because they concern discussions of climate action and epistemic credibility in public. They therefore present a potential for encounters between CICERO’s climate expertise and other parts of society, which means they concern negotiation of boundaries and connections.

The parties of the UNFCCC failed to come to an agreement in 2009, but during COP 15, across all inhabited continents, the coverage of climate change in major newspapers reached its highest in current history (McNatt et al. 2017). The media controversy “Climategate” also began in 2009 and it was the founding year of the Norwegian organization the Climate Realists, who are skeptical to anthropogenic climate change. In this year, CICERO provided expert commentary on the negotiations and debated the Climate Realists and other professed “climate skeptics” in Norwegian media and on their own webpage. In 2015, the French hosted COP 21 in Paris. In contrast with COP 15, this meeting ended with a global climate change agreement.

Though still important, climate change was less visible in Norwegian and international media in 2015 compared to in 2009. Furthermore, by 2015 CICERO had extensively cut down on their own contributions to debates with climate skeptics.

Given the contrasts and similarities between these two historic moments, a comparison of CICERO’s public communication at the time around the two events can provide insights on how researchers and research centers who act as public experts on climate change and climate politics are informed by history. It can also contribute to an understanding of changes in the relationship between CICERO and public climate

(19)

7

change discourse and shed light on the historicity of the Center’s roles in relation to other parts of society.

A roadmap: Overview of this thesis 1.4

In this introduction I presented the topic of this study and discussed the objective and rational of my analysis. In the next chapter I summarize relevant literature and present my analytical framework. I also review my methodology and material, along with the reliability, validity, limitations, generalizability, and ethical considerations of my analysis. The two periods in 2009 and 2015 that make up the main part of my analysis are framed by a larger historical context that can be traced back at least to the end of World War II. Chapter 3 looks at this history and the evolution of CICERO, from before the Center was established in 1990, through their political dealings in the early 1990s, a change in profile in the 2000s and onwards. Chapter 4 examines the public

communication of the Center in the period around COP 15, November and December 2009. It is divided into an overview of the Center’s discursive practice, and two sections with descriptive textual analysis of, respectively, how people at CICERO commented on COP 15 and discussed the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Chapter 4 ends with a comparative analysis of the Center’s communication practices on these themes in this period. Chapter 5 is structured the same way as chapter 4, with a focus on

CICERO’s texts produced in the period around COP 21, in November and December 2015. In chapter 6 I summarize my conclusions from the two periods, and by way of this answer my research questions. I also discuss implications of the findings of the previous chapters and address the potential for further research. I conclude with some considerations on relational perspectives of climate change discourse, research

communities and expert commentary.

(20)

8

2 Literature review, analytical framework and methodology

Literature review: Climate research in society 2.1

& communication across boundaries

I draw my main analytical framework from the overlapping fields of science and technology studies (STS) and the public communication of science and technology (PCST). Before I discuss my analytical framework, the vast research that has been done on science in society and the public communication of science deserves a brief review.

Climate change research and society

Much research has been done on the history of climate science in society. In A Vast Machine (2010), historian Paul N. Edwards provides an elaborate overview of the history of climate change science as it developed into a global knowledge infrastructure.

His particular focus is on modeling and computation, but he also brings attention to the politics of global warming. In the Norwegian context, Kristin Asdal (2011) has written thoroughly on the history of environmental politics in relation to the natural sciences in Norway from World War II onwards. She presents useful insights on the relationship between scientific production of knowledge and political processes, but the role of climate research is only a portion of her overall analysis. Concluding this trio, historian Yngve Nilsen (2001) discusses the history of Norwegian energy politics until 1998. He provides exclusive information on the early years of CICERO in relation to Norwegian oil politics and also elaborates on the different roles of the climate expert. However, apart from this work little research has been done on CICERO. Jørund Bergrem (2005) included CICERO in his Master thesis, but his focus was on the Center’s connections to the University of Oslo, an organizational perspective. While Nilsen and Bergrem

provide useful information on the Center they say little of their public orientation. Only an interdisciplinary paper by journalism student Hanne Jakobsen (2009) has been written on CICERO’s communication practices. Furthermore, much has changed at CICERO since these studies were made, which justifies a new assessment.

(21)

9

The anthology Klima, medier og politikk, (eds. Eide et al. 2014) covers various

perspectives of the meetings of media, politics and climate change, but focus remains on the role of media. Moreover, scholars in the MediaClimate network have studied how journalists in different nations addressed COP 15 as a media event, summarized in Global climate – local journalism: a transnational study of how media makes sense of climate summits (eds. Eide et al. 2010). Both of these books are great resources for climate change in public discourse, but there still appears to be room for elaboration on the role of climate researchers as public experts, both in the Norwegian context, and in general. While Sunniva Tøsse’s PhD (2012) addresses the meeting of climate scientists and the media in science communication, her primary approach was interviews, not discourse analysis of communication by public experts.

Science and technology studies

My analysis is influenced by the traditions of Science and technology studies (STS).

Many STS scholars have in later years confronted some of the field’s assumptions of the detachedness of science from society. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (eds. Jasanoff et al. 1995) gives an overview of theory and methods in STS. It presents discussions on science and technology as social practice and institution, on communication, controversy and political involvement. Much of the anthology shows how STS has developed into a field that explores the interrelationship of science and policy, the role of scientific authority and expertise in relation to politics, and the influence of politics on science.

An important contribution to STS in later years was the problematization of the notion that science is distinct from social practices. Sheila Jasanoff, one of the editors of the abovementioned handbook, also edited the book States of Knowledge: The co-

production of science and social order (2004). Here she defines “co-production” as

“…shorthand for the proposition that the ways in which we know and represent the world (both nature and society) are inseparable from the ways in which we choose to live in it” (2004, 2). Bruno Latour follows the same line in Pandora’s Hope (1999) as he describes how knowledge is produced in relation to materiality, and interrelates with social and political thought and action. Both these perspectives show how research is

(22)

10

integrated in society and provide a premise for my analysis, though I do not draw on them extensively in my discussion.

In my analysis I focus on the demarcation of research from other social practices, and the demarcation of CICERO from other groups in society. Thomas F. Gieryn introduces the term “boundary work” to describe this demarcation practice in the article "Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science" (Gieryn 1983). He discusses it further in the abovementioned handbook and a later monograph (Gieryn 1999). His premise is that science is a part of our culture, much as is argued with co-production and chains of translation. Sundqvist et al.’s (2015) approach issues of legitimacy and

credibility in more recent years. Their work looks at ways to shield and connect research and politics through formalization versus popularization of language and separation versus integration in knowledge production. They problematize a highly rationalized and idealized image of research as separate from society, but at the same time recognize the usefulness of demarcation for the role research can play in society.

However, neither Gieryn nor Sundqvist et al. present discourse analysis in the

intersection of boundary work and public communication of climate research. Gieryn (1983, 1995) emphasizes conflictual situations where boundaries between science and other parts of society are challenged or transformed. I study both situations of explicit conflict and stability, where boundaries are established and maintained. I link this perspective to public communication, which, when occurring across such boundaries, may influence and be influenced by them. Moreover, the role of boundary work in public communication has been studied before, but not from a research center to a more heterogeneous and unspecified lay audience. Sundqvist et al. (2015) study the meeting of expertise and policy, while Wilson and Herndl (2007) look at communication between experts in different fields in the closed context of deliberative meetings. In addition, the focus of my analysis opens up for an elaboration of Gieryn’s discussion on the dynamic relationship of dependence and independence between scientists and political decision-makers. I have extended this perspective in my inquiry into the relationship between climate change research and civil society.

(23)

11

The public communication of science and technology

The public communication of science and technology (PCST) is an intersecting field to STS. From the 1990s onwards, many PCST scholars have criticized traditional views on science dissemination. In the first issue of the journal Public Understanding of Science, Brian Wynne argues for a broad conceptualization of expertise that encompassed both scientists and Cumbrian sheep farmers (1992). In the Handbook of Public

Communication of Science and Technology (eds. Bucchi and Trench 2008), Massimiano Bucchi elaborates on the distinction between a traditional model of the public

understanding of science and one that focuses more on the public communication of science (Bucchi 2008). For Bucchi a clear distinction between a homogeneous public and the scientific community is too simplistic. He argues that there is a qualitative difference between expert and lay knowledge that is not simply a matter of degrees of ignorance. However, for instance Weingart see an increased emphasis on the integration of public and scientific community as at risk of romaniticizing lay knowledge (Weingart 1997, 611). Such developments in the perspective of popularized communication of science justifies an in-depth study of how CICERO relates to their lay audience to see to what extent such perspectives have moved beyond PCST and entered public

communication practices.

Many scholars have discussed the relationship between social science and public culture, for instance within the Frankfurt School and Max Weber’s elaboration on the relationship between experts and politicians (e.g. Weber 1999, 165-167). However, according to Angela Cassidy little research has been done in later years on the specific issues social scientists face when publicly communicating their research (2008, 225).

The public communication of interdisciplinary research that spans both natural and social sciences seems even less explored than what Cassidy (2008) argues is the case for social sciences. Cassidy does not mention interdisciplinary research in her review of the public communication of social sciences. Conversely, Sundqvist et al. (2015) look at formalization and separation in three different, interdisciplinary climate research organizations. But these organizations do not produce climate research as much as they synthesize it for policy purposes, and they do not communicate specifically in the public sphere. It seems likely that public communication with a foundation in interdisciplinary research, such as that performed at CICERO, shares commonalities and differences with

(24)

12

the kind of challenges faced by social sciences and natural science. The interdisciplinary character of the public communication of CICERO is not my main focus, but the choice of this topic means that insights into such practices may be gained from my analysis.

Spanning boundaries

With a position as a research center, public communicator of research and expert commentator on climate change, CICERO holds a hybrid position in Norwegian society, between a research organization, a policy-adviser and a co-producer of public opinion. Some scholars who study research communication speak of “boundary- spanning activities” or “boundary roles” (Rödder 2012, 159), hybrid organizations that move between science and politics, such as the IPCC (Miller 2001), boundary

negotiations (Trompette and Vinck 2009) and intermediaries (Callon 1994). Moreover, Bucchi (2008) and Sarah Tinker Perrault (2013) open up for different perspectives on the relationship between researchers and other actors in society. According to Bucchi the public communication of science can be viewed as cross-talking between discourses under specific circumstances “…at the intersection between specialist and popular level” (Bucchi 2008, 67). Perrault (2013) argues for a “democratic” ideal for the public communication of science, where both researchers and civil society are involved in knowledge evaluation. However, Edwards problematizes the degree to which so-called

“extended peer review”, the inclusion of lay people in assessment of climate research’s data and methods, is conducive to research on climate change (2010, 421-427). My analysis adds insights to these issues by addressing to what degree CICERO’s public communication represents a boundary-spanning practice and how they themselves represent the popular communication of expertise knowledge.

If research centers are hybrids that negotiate across boundaries between research and public issues, the postulation of “mode 2” science or “post-academic” science becomes relevant. Gibbons et al. (1994) (on mode 2 science) and Ziman (2000) (on post-

academic science) argue that science has changed in recent years. According to them, new science is decentralized, more heterogeneous and applied; it moves out from the academic context of the university, and into politics, bureaucracy, the business sector and other institutions. However, according to Weingart (1997), scholars presented this way of doing science as the “finalization” of science already in the 1970s. The

(25)

13

important similarity between “finalization” and “mode 2” science is “the socio-political orientation of science as the ultimate stage in the evolution of the relation between science and society” (Weingart 1997, 611). Further, Weingart states that this is not descriptive of science as a whole, but applies specifically to policy-related fields, such as climate change science. As CICERO is an independent research center mandated to perform and communicate applied research (CICERO 2006b) they appear to fall

squarely within this perspective. However, it seems unlikely that they are at the ultimate stage of their evolution.

General considerations

Many in the field of STS and PCST have written on environment and climate change science. These fields lend themselves to a study of meetings of materiality, science and politics, they focus on the natural world and are at the same time often policy relevant and easily politicized. From what I have found, there is a lack of research on

communication practices and boundary work when it comes to research organizations such as CICERO. With reference to my research questions, analysis of the public communication practices of a center like CICERO can present interesting findings on:

1) the construction and maintenance of boundaries between research centers, politics and civil society in public discourse on climate change; 2) how such a research center addresses the broader public through their own channels for public communication of climate change knowledge; and 3) how they navigate different roles in relation to other actors in society.

Analytical framework 2.2

In the 1990s, discussions of the roles and positions of science in society turned into the debate coined “the Science Wars”. The debate centered on scientific authority and involved discussion on the interpretation of Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1996 [1962]) and the “Sokal affair”.³ Previously mentioned scholars such as Latour and Gieryn address the “Wars” in their works, as does Ziman (2000). As Greg Myers argues, one can discuss popularization of science and how

3 A hoax where a nonsense paper passed through supposed rigorous peer review and was published in the journal Social Text. Alan Sokal announced his hoax, using it to criticize perspectives in social science.

(26)

14

debates in the public sphere are informed by the public sphere without necessarily reopening this debate (Myers 2003, 269). However, some of the arguments in the debate were founded on a Cartesian dualism where mind and matter were seen as ontologically separate. I therefore find it necessary to point out that my perspective is closer to that of monist analyticism, where both the mind and the body are regarded as embedded in the world. This pragmatic position, where primacy is given neither to materiality or

sociality, is elaborated by Patrick T. Jackson in The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations (2011, 113-155). Though the position is pragmatic, it does not necessarily lead to relativism or idealism: I do not argue that anything counts as knowledge, as some STS scholars purportedly have (Edwards 2010, 437). I do not mean to undermine the epistemic authority of climate research, but I do mean to analyze the social roles of a climate research center. This is the line I walk in my analysis.⁴

Jasanoff’s “co-production” and Latour’s “chains of translation” appear closely related to monist ontology. However, the terms easily become “catch all” for all processes where materiality, culture and society are involved, all aspects of human life. For me they provide a critical point of reference, but in the analysis of discourse materiality may play a less prominent part. Still, materiality enables, mediates and shapes

communication. Material perspectives are thus relevant for my analysis, but they stay in the background as part of a bigger picture of research and communication.

The interactive perspectives of Jasanoff and Latour can also be connected to Mustafa Emirbayer’s article “Manifest for a Relational Sociology” (1997). Emirbayer delineates between seeing the world as made of static things or dynamic, unfolding relations. The latter of these perspectives means to “…reject the notion that one can posit discrete, pre- given units such as the individual or society as ultimate starting points of sociological analysis” (287). Arguing for a relational perspective, he gives primacy to context and process in sociological analysis (290). Emirbayer draws on the work of Andrew Abbott who argues that we should look for “things of boundaries”, not “boundaries of things”

(1995, 857). Abbot’s general argument is that social entities come into existence through the construction of boundaries: “Boundaries come first, then entities” (1995, 860). However, entities can also construct boundaries. Nevertheless, the relationship remains processual, and I find this chicken-or-the-egg dilemma is best described by a

4 This is also how I justify drawing on the empirical findings of CICERO’s researchers in this study.

(27)

15

focus on dialectic relations over essences. Following these perspectives, the relations between climate change research and other social entities are significant to understand CICERO’s role in public discourse.

A critical historical perspective is prominent in my analysis. I place the communication practices of CICERO in the period around the climate negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009 and in Paris in 2015 within longer historical lines, as both their actions and the premises of their actions are historical products. According to Norman Fairclough, to be critical is to show hidden connections and causes. It also implies acknowledgment that things can be different (Fairclough 1992, 9). Intellectual historian Quentin Skinner (2002) argues that historical insight into a subject lets us see its qualities and potentials and how it relates to our present situation and the choices we face. For Skinner it can:

…help us to appreciate how far the values embodied in our present way of life, and our present way of thinking about those values, reflect a series of choices made at different times between different possible worlds. This awareness can help liberate us from the grip of any one hegemon[i]al account of those values and how they should be interpreted and understood. Equipped with a broader sense of possibility, we can stand back from the intellectual commitments we have inherited and ask ourselves in a new spirit of enquiry what we should think of them (2002, 6).

Thus I believe the historical dimensions of public communication on climate change presented in my analysis can challenge an established understanding of such practices by showing their historicity and open up for new, even more useful perspectives.

2.2.1 Boundaries, connections, actors and practices

The boundaries of research

By “boundary work” I mean the construction and maintenance of demarcation of research from other practices in society. In his 1983 article, Gieryn describes boundary- work as a rhetorical style where researchers describe science⁵ for public and political authorities, to expand the domain of science and defend professional autonomy. Though Kuhn reinvented theorization of the demarcation of science, Gieryn (1995) argues that

5 Though Gieryn talks about “science” I prefer to use “research” here, something I get back to below.

(28)

16

Kuhn’s perspective on structures lacks a discussion of the practice that demarcates research from other aspects of the world. Gieryn turns this critique also on Robert K.

Merton and Karl Popper. He wants to move focus away from structures and onto the social practice aspects of science. Gieryn talks about “science”, but I use “research” in my analysis, something I get back to below. I believe the premises of Gieryn theories are as applicable to research as to science, as both regard epistemic practices and authority.

Extending this discussion by drawing on Jørgensen and Phillips (1999), boundary work can be seen as the result of discursive conflict where actors from different discourses compete to establish meaning within the same discursive space. Boundary work is the discursive constitution of research as a distinct practice by implicitly or explicitly referring to the standards that convey epistemic authority, presented as the defining trait of research. Such standards can be norms like those proposed by Merton in 1942, namely communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism

(Gieryn 1995, 398-400). They can also be models of scientific practice such as Popper’s criterion of empirical falsification (Gieryn 1995, 395). Even Imre Lakatos’ (1978) scientific research programs with their hard core of theoretical premises can be used as a reference for the boundaries of research. Boundary work can also be done through reference to academic position, title or community, or by the application of specialist language, jargon or genre that carry research connotations.

From the perspective of “boundary work” we can map out society as consisting of territories with boundaries, of which science is one, and political decision-making and civil society are others. In Gieryn’s works referenced here, he uses a cartography metaphor to discuss how research monopolizes, expands, expels and protects its territory when challenged or in conflict with other domains. The cartography metaphor can also be used to discuss the maintained demarcation of research from other parts of society. Such separation from for instance politics and civil society can bring epistemic authority and credibility to research, but it can also undermine legitimacy and relevance.

Thus boundary work presents opportunities and challenges for researchers who publicly communicate climate change.

Gieryn generally refers to “science” and not “research”, as I did above. His focuses in particular on natural science and this may have implications for his theories such more

(29)

17

rigid demarcations between science and society, as research often is considered more applied. At the same time Cassidy (2008) hypothesizes that the distinction between

“science” and “social science” in public communication is more categorical in Anglophone cultures than for instance in German, where the word Wissenschaft can encompass both. This hypothesis can be extended to Norway, where a similar word, vitenskap, to a certain extent, can denote both these fields. However, with some exceptions for specific issues of natural science, I generally refer to the knowledge production at CICERO as “research” for four reasons: the interdisciplinary and applied character of the work done at the Center is not necessarily covered by the term

“science” with its normative and disciplinary connotations; the Center is a part of the Norwegian institute sector with the sector’s emphasis on applied research, and is categorized by the Research Council of Norway (RCN) as a research institute; the term research better encompass theories of mode 2 science, post-academic science or

finalization as the terms relate to applied research; and CICERO refers to their work as forskning (not vitenskap) which translates more closely to research.

In discussing the communicative practices of a research center, a pragmatic problem is the matter of who to study as discursive actor. From an institutional and organizational point of view CICERO is a unit, but what about when it comes to communication?

From the outside, the organization appears more uniform, internal variations appear less dichotomous, and the general culture or pattern of practices of the Center more distinct.

When presenting a statement for a CICERO researcher, media in Norway usually refer to both the researcher’s specialization and their status at CICERO. In my interviews, CICERO’s researchers recognized the interdisciplinary character of the Center, but they repeatedly emphasized their individuality and independence as researchers – what one senior researcher described as their separate “platforms”. From within CICERO researchers define the Center by the distinct practices and specializations of the individual researchers.⁶ However, I focus on CICERO as an actor in public discourse because the Center is the main reference point when these researchers participate in public discourse, the Center has influence. From the outside CICERO appears more like a unit, so that to a certain extent the Center, and not simply the individual researchers, acts in public debate. Furthermore, most texts, even a text from CICERO, is usually a

6 Interview with current communication director Christian Bjørnæs, 26.10.2016, CICERO offices, Oslo.

Interviews with CICERO researchers 2016, CICERO offices, Oslo

(30)

18

product of many contributions, not a single author (Asdal et al. 2008, 249-250). As I recognize that this is a multifaceted issue, I refer to CICERO, researchers and other staff at the Center as “they” not “it”, as their communication practices and public influence are products of a joint effort at the Center. It is also worth noting here the paradoxical fact that when I treat CICERO as an actor, I contribute to the demarcation of the Center.

Expertise and public communication

In this study I mostly focus on the expert commentary of CICERO in the public climate change discourse. I therefore do not focus so much on the public communication of research, but rather public communication of climate issues with a basis in research.

Scholars of PCST have usefully discussed communication practices by researchers that go beyond the communication of research. According to Peters (2008), one reason research is discussed in public is because they connect to policy issues and therefore demand collective decision and democratic involvement of citizens, enabled especially through mass media. Peters emphasizes the diversity of public research communication as he makes a distinction between researchers as public experts, as popularizers of research, and as discussant in a meta-discourse on the research-society relationship. It is mainly the first, and to some extent the third, of these roles, that are relevant in this study. Peters shows how researchers as public experts can act as policy-advisors and public commentators combined. They are not (only) communicators of scientific knowledge, which is abstract, general and theoretical, but of expertise knowledge, which “…is concerned with the analysis and solution of practical problems in specific situations” (Peters 2008, 132). The distinction between expertise knowledge and scientific knowledge compares to Nilsen (2001, 22-23, 151)’s distinction between experts “in their field”, who have a general and more applied knowledge, and experts

“on their subject”, who have a more specialized approach to knowledge.

I use Peters’ (2008) archetype of researchers as public experts, with additional

perspective from Nilsen, to describe the role performed by CICERO researchers in their discussion of the COPs and arguments against climate change. As the people at

CICERO’s communication department use the researchers at the Center as a source of their communication, the term can be extended to also include this group. Peters reasons that public experts participating in the public sphere affect policy-making as they take

(31)

19

part in “the construction of a social reality”, delineating fact from fiction, in a way that politicians cannot ignore (Peters 2008, 132). From this perspective epistemic authority becomes part of the public picture and credibility becomes vitally important. As

Edwards points out “making [expert] knowledge work means getting people to trust it – to buy it on credit, as it were, where the credit belongs to an authority they are willing to believe” (2010, 397). CICERO’s reputation is, as Wynne argfues (1995, 377), an

important part of how people understand the climate knowledge they communicate, perhaps even more important than specific dissemination of technical information.

Here it is worth pointing out that only one of my seven informants at CICERO described the Center’s public COP reporting as “expert commentary”. The others refrained from using the term “expert”. This may have to do with a more everyday understanding of the term in Norwegian discourse, but as current communication director Christian Bjørnæs pointed out:

We want to demarcate that our competence is something else than for instance the one that experts in NGOs [non-governmental organizations] or the business sector contribute with. This is not an explicit policy at [CICERO], but I think it is pretty common. I rarely experience that a researcher wants to be spoken of as an expert rather than as a researcher [forsker].⁷

In not referring to themselves as experts, CICERO increases their credibility through a kind of boundary work. As they enter public discourse they set themselves apart from (other) experts in society. Peters states: “As experts, scientists do not possess a monopoly of relevant knowledge; values and interests will come into play and public controversies may evolve” (2008, 143). Thus omitting the term reduces the vulnerability of the Center’s communicators. “Expert” may be too generic to specifically describe the kind of commentary performed by CICERO. However, whether people at CICERO see themselves as experts or not, they may still perform the role of public experts. I used the term “experts” for its overall applicability and as an acknowledgement that researchers are one among many kinds of groups with an elaborate understanding of an issue.

In entering public discourse, CICERO relates to an audience that can be described as

“lay” in comparison with the Center’s own professional expertise. Norman Fairclough

7 Email correspondence with Christian Bjørnæs, 11.10.2017.

(32)

20

defines discourse as “a practice not just of representing the world, but of signifying the world, constituting and constructing the world in meaning” (1992, 64). He therefore defines discursive communication as acting in and upon our world, giving it meaning and socially constructing it. As mentioned above, boundaries can be implicitly

communicated by the style of communication, such as language use or genre. It can also be done by implying that the readers are at a different level of understanding than the author. The condition of some of CICERO’s boundaries can thus be studied by how the Center addresses, relates to and represents their audience.

In studies of the public understanding of science, the canonical view of popularization was long a unidirectional, two-stage and linear model where the (passive) public was a blank slate of ignorance to be written with knowledge by (active) scientists. This view saw a clear-cut boundary between a homogeneous public and the scientific community, with authoritative knowledge only in the latter group. Popularization meant a risk of dilution or distortion of the original knowledge. By its critics, this model is named the

“deficit model” or the “diffusionist” conception of public communication of science, depending on which of its characteristics are emphasized (Bucchi 2008) (Myers 2003, 266). Bucchi (2008) argues that this conception is too simplistic. He points to three ways of communicating research: the deficit model focused on transferring knowledge, the dialogue oriented which opens up for discussion of the implications of research, and the participatory, where knowledge is co-produced by various actors (2008, 69-70).

Perrault also points to an alternative way of perceiving research communication, as she promotes a “democratic” approach. According to Perrault this would lead from a culture that emphasizes the “public appreciation of science and technology” to one that focuses on the “critical understanding of science in public” (2013, 7). As mentioned, my focus is on public communication with a basis in research and not on the communication of research as such. Still, Bucchi (2008) and Perrault’s (2013) critiques show how the different ways researchers relate to their audience contributes to the way the latter are represented and in what options they see for relating to the knowledge communicated.

There are different ways to understand climate change and not all need be based on a technical understanding of the research. John Shotter describes a social “knowing ‘from within’ a situation or circumstance” (Shotter 1993, xiii) while Jackson (2015) promotes a pluralistic understanding of knowledge illustrated by the different ways of knowing

(33)

21

Scotch whisky. Their arguments may also be applied to ways of understanding climate change. For Shotter and Jackson there is a connection between knowledge and

understanding, that matches Wynne’s point that “a proper approach to PUS has to problematize what is meant not only by ‘science’ but also by ‘understanding’” (Wynne 1995, 364). Regarding the public understanding of climate change, Ryghaug et al.

(2011) identify different sense-making devices among a lay audience, one being how it is relevant in their own lives.

However, “lay audience” is a generic category that describes a diverse group, who may only be identified as a group in that they are “lay” relative to CICERO’s professional expertise. As Shotter (1993) argues, the same technical information may appear as different kinds of knowledge for different groups, in different situations. So who are the Center’s lay audience? This question is difficult to answer, as CICERO communicates on many platforms. According to a survey performed by the Center in 2009, the readers of their magazine were people working in ministries, the private sector, non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) and the interested public (CICERO 2009c, 23).

This detailed description stands in contrast with Bjørnæs’ description of Klima’s target audience as “…the interested public …, not other experts [on the topic]”.⁸ Indeed the 2009 survey shows that there may have been many among Klima’s readership that had a different kind of expertise on climate change than the one found at CICERO. However, Bjørnæs pointed out that CICERO’s most important target group were “people who use climate knowledge to come to a decision in their work”.⁹ They wrote more serious articles for this group and other, more “easy” articles for “people in general”. It seems implied here that the first group was individuals with personal influence in their line of work, such as leaders in government and industry. This perspective was echoed by a CICERO researcher who said he “visualized someone working in a Ministry” when writing op-eds and popular research articles.¹⁰

Political decision-makers and civil society

Gieryn shows how in democratic countries science and politics have a relationship that is close, but not too close. Too close a relationship might challenge the credibility of

8 Interview with Christian Bjørnæs, 06.10.2017, CICERO offices, Oslo.

10 Interview with CICERO researcher 2016, CICERO offices, Oslo.

(34)

22

science, which may appear just like another opinion in the crowd, or the legitimacy of politics, which may appear superfluous in the face of technocratic decision-making.

Thus the distance science maintains from politics needs to be “…far enough for science to be objective and authoritative, close enough to be useful” (Gieryn 1995, 439). In conjunction with Gieryn’s theorization is the expression “policy relevant but not prescriptive”. This is the term the IPCC uses to describe their assessment work (IPCC Secretariat 2010) and it is used by CICERO to describe their research.¹¹ The term in itself is an example of boundary work as it signals a clear distinction between research and politics, where the first informs the latter without making the political decisions.

The term parallels Peters (2008) take on the Habermasian description of the “decisionist model”. In this model the relationship between research and politics is presented as a linear communication of information from the researchers to the political decision- makers, with research as a basis on which the latter can make rational decisions. I use the term “political decision-maker” in this study to signify that this is a diverse group, from political leaders to bureaucrats and ministry officials who rely on research to develop policies. In this way, CICERO can present their role as an adviser to political decision-makers, as “…making the client’s implicit preferences explicit; developing possible decision options; and determining and assessing consequences using clients’

preferences” (Peters 2008, 133). This represents research as neutral in relation to political decision-making. However, Shaw and Robinson (2004) challenge the idea that a relationship between research and politics can be “relevant but not prescriptive”, a dissemination of knowledge that is linear and unidirectional, devoid of political

influence. According to them, the relationship is more integrated. Jackson (2014) points out that historically social research was considered by some as a way to remove the irrationality of political power struggle by presenting the most rational choice for going forward, a more technocratic form of governance. These three perspectives present different ways researchers can relate to and represent political decision-makers. Thus political decision-makers may be represented with varying relevance for knowledge production and varying control over decision-making.

I focus on “civil society” rather than “the public” in my analysis to signify the

complexity of citizen activities that are relevant for climate change, as civil society is

(35)

23

not a single, homogeneous group, but a network of associations, groups, movements and individuals. Jan Aart Scholte presents a useful definition of civil society: “a political space where associations of citizens seek, from outside political parties, to shape societal rules” (Scholte 2014, 324). By this definition civil society is not synonymous with NGOs, though many NGOs are included in the definition. Drawing on (Andresen and Gulbrandsen 2005, 172) and Vormedal (2008) I divide relevant NGOs into activist NGOs with a membership base, advisory NGOs with an intellectual base, and lobbying NGOs associated with business and industry.

Scholte’s definition moreover, means that civil society is not synonymous with “the general public”, a term with a less explicit political orientation. Central in Scholte’s definition of civil society are citizens as members of political community who come together to deliberate, strategize and mobilize. At the same time, by excluding political parties, the definition emphasizes that civil society actions does not aspire to occupy official authority, and thereby do not take the roles of what I in this study describe as

“political decision-maker”. Instead, they aim to “…influence the principles, norms, laws, and standards that govern the collective life of human beings” (Scholte 2014, 324). Furthermore, Scholte’s definition does not imply unanimity or even civility in civil society, and it intentionally does not make a neat distinction between civil society and commercial, official and political party activities; as these activities can overlap to a varying degree. In addition, for the purpose of my analysis I underscore that civil

society can contain people with different kinds of expertise (Perrault 2013, xiii-xiiii).

While Gieryn (1995, 1983) does not elaborate on the relationship between civil society and science, Perrault proposes a view that sees science, and by implication research, as an interactive part of civil society (Perrault 2013, 16). The degree to which the research community and civil society depends on each other can be analyzed from different perspectives. Steven Yearley (2008) shows that environment NGOs have an ambiguous relationship to natural science. Naomi Ichihara Røkkum (2015) argues in her Master’s thesis, that Norwegian NGOs have some channels for influencing climate negotiations, if not climate research. Moreover, civil society may influence political decision-making, impact society and thus influence what kind of research is done, through activism, mass movements, and, at the extreme end, revolutions. In Norway many parts of civil society use the findings of climate research in climate action advocacy, from official NGOs

(36)

24

(such as the Bellona Foundation); to looser communities of bloggers; networks; and other less clearly defined groups. Consequently, civil society, just as political decision- makers, can be considered part of CICERO lay audience and can use the information they communicates to guide decision-making and how they influence society.

Within civil society we find a group that can loosely be defined as “climate skeptics”.

They are people who publicly argue that climate change is not real, that it is not anthropogenic, or that it is but we should focus our efforts on other things than mitigation and similar arguments (Mann 2012, 23). Some of them are researchers critical to the use of modelling in climate change research (Edwards 2010, 411-418). In some ways this group is too heterogeneous to be encompassed by one term. Describing all those who criticize climate change research as “skeptics” seems possibly confusing, because the term denotes a specific kind of scientific virtue within the philosophy of science. However, in my analysis I have found it useful to be able to refer to them with a generic term. When necessary I therefore use the term “climate skeptics” as it is broader, and less contentious than for instance “climate deniers” or “climate critics”.

Methodology 2.3

2.3.1 Discussion of methodology

My in depth textual analysis focuses on popular articles, interviews and op-eds from November and December 2009 and November and December 2015. I analyze these texts to identify instances of discursive confrontation where boundary work and

maintenance is performed. In extension of the perspective on boundaries, I also identify instances where CICERO related to their audience and signaled the relevance and legitimacy of their research in and for civil society and political decision-making. My approach to this analysis is guided by Norman Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis.

There are some other perspectives on discourse that inform my analysis as well.

For Jørgensen and Phillips (2002 [1999]), discourse analysis starts with a social constructivist and anti-essentialist perspective that looks critically at the connections between knowledge, social processes and social action. This echoes Emirbayer’s

“relational sociology”, discussed in my analytical framework. Following Jørgensen and

Climate Change at the Center: The Public Communication of CICERO Center for International Climate Research