Uncertainties and insufficiencies:
making sense of climate adaptation
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor Trondheim, September 2012
Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Humanities
Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture
Sunniva Eikeland Tøsse
NTNU
Norwegian University of Science and Technology Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor Faculty of Humanities
Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture
© Sunniva Eikeland Tøsse
ISBN 978-82-471-3796-3 (printed ver.) ISBN 978-82-471-3797-0 (electronic ver.) ISSN 1503-8181
Doctoral theses at NTNU, 2012:245 Printed by NTNU-trykk
1
Preface
Thisthesisiswrittenaspartoftheresearchproject“PreparingforaRainyDay?
Configuringclimatescienceforfuturesociety,"financedbytheResearchCouncilof NorwaythroughtheNORKLIMAprogramme,anddirectedbyKnutH.Sørensen, NTNU.Iwouldliketothanktheprojectgroup–KnutH.Sørensen,MarianneRyghaug, andRobertNæss–forinspiringdiscussions,withanespeciallybigthankstoRobert NæssforfruitfulandinspiringcoͲoperationintheinterviewinganddataͲgathering process.IwouldalsoliketothankMarianneRyghaug,fortheconsenttouseher climatescientistinterviewdatafrom2005.Thefirstpaperinthisthesisiswritten togetherwithMarianneRyghaugandKnutSørensen.ThisisbasedonRyghaug’s interviewsandonmyownclimatescientistinterviews.Basedoninitialdiscussions withRyghaug,Imadesummariesonthebackgroundoftheinterviews,andthen SørensenandIwrotethepapertogether–withinputandcommentsfromRyghaug.
Althoughtherestofthepapershavemeasthesoleauthor,neitherofthemwould havebeenpossiblewithouttherestoftheprojectgroup.
Iwouldalsoliketothankmyinformantsfortakingthetimetotalktous.Without themsharingtheirthoughtsandopinions,noneofthiswouldhavebeenpossible.
AthankyoutothepeopleatUCDavis–inparticularJoeDumitandBenOrlove–but alsotherestofthepeopleImetthere,whoallmademyvisitatUCDavismemorable andfruitful.Thankyouforcommentsandinsights.
Aspecialthankstomysupervisor,KnutH.Sørensen,whohavebeenaconstant sourceofideasandinput,andwhohasputupwithmytendencytosolveconfusion andambiguitybyproducinginordinateamountsoftext.VickyCarphassaidthat
“Whenweread,westartatthebeginningandcontinueuntilwereachtheend.When wewrite,westartinthemiddleandfightourwayout.”1However,fightingyourway outofthetextbyproducingmoretextdoesnotalwaysworklikefightingfirewithfire, sometimesitproducesquitethejungleofpaperpiles(sorryKnut,andsorry,trees!).
Forhelpingmefindmywaythroughthepaperpilejungle,IwouldliketothankSiri, Jenni,Adria,andKristinforreadͲthroughsandhelpfulcomments.
Asformyfamilyandfriends–thankyouforyourpatience,support,andlove.Iam lookingforwardtospendingmoretimewithyouandlesswithmytext.
1As quoted by Jen Campbell on http://jenͲcampbell.blogspot.com/, accessed February29th2012
2
3
Tableofcontents
Climatechange–societymatters...5
Summaries of the papers: Objectivity, relevance, imagined publics, and sensemakingchallenges...7
Paperno.1:Competingconcerns?Howscientistsmanagetherelationship betweenobjectivityworkandrelevancework...7
Paperno.2:Controllingcommunication?Scientists’accountsoftheirmedia strategies...9
Paperno.3:Concernand confidence.Architectsmakingsenseofclimate adaptation...10
Paperno.4:Insufficient,irrelevant,oruseless?Localgovernmentviewson climatescienceforclimateadaptation...12
Theoreticalresources...15
Theclimateadaptationimpasse:failedcoͲproductionofknowledgeandpolitics?23 Methods...31
References...44
Chapter2:Competingconcerns?Howscientistsnavigatebetweenrelevancework andobjectivitywork...55
Adifficultactofbalance?...55
Latemodernscience:relevanceratherthantruth?...58
Method...60
Relevancework:Acontractualobligation?...61
Objectivitywork–undersiegebyconcernsforrelevance?...65
IngredientsofboundaryͲwork...68
Scienceextended?...71
References...73
Chapter3:AimingforSocialorPoliticalRobustness?MediaStrategiesamongClimate Scientists...79
“Climategate”:ACrisisofTrust?...79
OpennessversusControl:TwoDivergentApproachestoAddressingtheTrust Deficit...80
4
DataandMethods...83
CommunicatingClimateSciencethroughtheNewsMedia:AimsandReasons...86
CommunicatingClimateSciencethroughtheMedia:TheChallenges...88
CommunicatingClimateScience:StrategicConsiderations...93
FromSocialtoPoliticalRobustness...96
References...98
Chapter4:Concernandconfidence:Architectsmakingsenseofclimateadaptation ... ...105
Introduction...105
Sensemakingandarchitectidentity...106
Thecase:Norwegianarchitectsandclimateadaption–contextandmethodology ...109
Climateadaptationandarchitectidentity...112
Climateadaptationandthecontextofarchitectwork...116
Theissueitself–howimportantforsensemaking?...118
Confidenceundersiege?Climateadaptationandtheebbofholismasdesign regime...121
Makingsenseofclimateadaption...123
References...125
Chapter5:Insufficient,irrelevant,oruseless?Localgovernmentviewsonclimate scienceforclimateadaptation...129
Introduction...129
Transferandutilizationofscientificknowledge...131
Method...133
Thelocalusefulnessofclimatescienceknowledge...134
Climatescienceeffectsandthemeaningofclimateadaptation...139
Canclimatescienceguideclimateadaptation?...144
Bibliography...146
Appendix...153
5
Climatechange–societymatters
TheEarth’sclimateischanging.Thescienceonthispointissettled(IPCC2007).Also consensualisthefactthatthischangeisinducedbyhumanactivities,andthatitwill haveimpactsbothonnatureandonourwayoflife(IPCC2007).Szerszynski(2010) notesthattheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChangeinitsFourthassessment Reportin2007“usedfarmorecategoricallanguagethanithadinitsearlierreports”, indicatingthatthisisaproblemwherethescientificevidenceismountingup,while theurgentlyneededactionisfailingtofollowsuit.Whilemitigationmeasuresstill maybethemainfocusoftheclimatechangedebate,theissueofhowtoadapttothe hangesthatwillcomeisrisingontheagenda.Thisthesisexamineshowclimate knowledgeisdisseminatedandhowitisappropriated,interpretedandusedona locallevel,addressingthequestionofifandhowclimatescienceisrelevantand useableinlocalclimateadaptionefforts.
Thelargestbodyofclimatechangescholarshiphasconcerneditselfwithclimatefrom anaturalscienceviewpoint,witheconomicsansweringmostofthesocialͲscience questions(Urry2011).However,thesocialisinextricablytiedtoclimatechange,both itscausesanditsimpacts.“Societymatters,”writesUrry(2011,1),infact,inhis opinion,“[e]nvironmentalpoliticsarepredominantlyabout‘society’”(Urry2011,3).
Humanactivities–developmentandinequalities,exploitsandexploitations–are whatdriveCO2emissionstolevelsbeyondwhatnaturalsourceswouldhavecaused.
Also,adaptingtoclimatechangeimpactswillbeasocialaswellastechnicalproblem, especiallysinceclimatechangeimpactsareexpectedtoexacerbateexistingissues, tensionsandchallenges(Adger,Lorenzoni,andO'Brien2009;CrateandNuttall2009c, 2009b)—being,asCrateandNuttallputit,“athreatmultiplier”(2009c,11)that magnifieseconomic,politicalandenvironmentaltrends.
Climateknowledgeisexpectedtoplayanimportantroleinhowpeoplerespondto climatechange(Burtonetal.2002;Adgeretal.2007).AccordingtoGiddens(2009), thechallengesconcerningknowledgeusearepotentiallylargerwhenitcomesto climate adaptation – adaptation, he contends, requires more research than mitigationtobedoneright.Norwegianclimatepolicydocumentsseemtoechothis pointofview:TheNorwegianOfficialReport(greenpaper)NOU2006:18AClimate Friendly Norway (2006) and the corresponding green paper concerned with adaptation,NOU2010:10AdaptationtoaChangingClimate(2010).Inthemitigation report,thescientists’jobwas,byandlarge,characterizedascomplete;inthe adaptationreport,ontheotherhand,itwascharacterizedasonlyjustbegun.
6
Howcansocialscienceshelpwhenwetakeonclimateadaptation?Jasanoffand Wynne(1998)suggestthatqualitativesocialscienceshavemuchtooffertoincrease understandingofclimatechangeandsociety:Amongotherthings,theycangiveus insightintohowproblemsareframed;howcontroversiesariseandaresolved;how risksandthreatsarerecognizedandactedupon;howscientific knowledgeis producedandvalidated;andhowscientificknowledgeistakenupandgivenmeaning locallyandinpolicydecisions.
Myentrypointintotheissueofclimateadaptationandclimatescienceknowledgeis scienceandtechnologystudies(STS).Studiesofclimatechangeandclimatescience fromthisfieldcanbedividedintwomainstrands,followingJasanoff’s(2004b) taxonomyofscienceͲandtechnologystudies’scholarship.First,therearestudies concernedwiththeestablishmentofnaturalorder,andwith“theemergenceofnew facts,thingsandsystemsofthought”(Jasanoff2004b,19),thatis,inthiscase,the establishmentofthescientificideaofanthropogenicclimatechange(Fleming1998;
Edwards 2001) and its related institutions, methods and tools (e.g. General CirculationModels)(Miller2004a,2001b;Shackleyetal.1998;Edwards2001).
Second,therearestudiesconcernedwithhowtodealwith“knowledgeconflicts withinworldsthathavealreadybeendemarcated,forpracticalpurposes,intothe naturalandthesocial”(Jasanoff2004b,19).Studiesinthisveinfocusonhowscience advisoryinstitutionsforglobalclimatepolicyshouldbeorganized(Miller2001a, 2004a;EdwardsandSchneider2001),howscientistsdealwithuncertaintyand balanceauthorityandrelevanceatthesciencepolicyborder(ShackleyandWynne 1996,1997),andproblemsof“relocalization,”thatis,problemsofcreatinglocal relevanceandusabilityofscientificresultsbroughtaboutbya“globalized”scientific endeavor,and/orbyscientificpractice,norms,andinstitutionalorganization(e.g.
Miller2004b;LahsenandNobre2007;Jasanoff2010;Beck2011).
ItismainlythesecondstrandofSTSclimatesciencescholarshipthatIwillbe employing.Studyingthedisseminationandrelevancemakingeffortsofclimate scientists,andhowarchitectsandlocaladministrationemployeesapproachtheissue ofclimateadaptation,Iaskwhetherclimateadaptationreallyisacaseof,asGiddens suggested,afieldwheremoreresearchisneeded.Whatkindsoftoolsarecalledfor bylocalpractitioners?
Iwillnowprovidesummariesofthepapersthatmakeupthisdissertation,beforeIgo ontodiscusstheirsignificanceinrelationtorelevantearlierresearchandtheoretical contributions.
7
Summaries of the papers: Objectivity, relevance, imagined publics, and sensemakingchallenges
Thepapersmakingupthisthesisaretitled
1) Competing concerns? How scientists manage the relationship between objectivityworkandrelevancework
2) Controllingcommunication?Scientists’accountsoftheirmediastrategies 3) Concernandconfidence.Architectsmakingsenseofclimateadaptation 4) Insufficient,irrelevant,oruseless?Localgovernmentviewsonclimatescience
forclimateadaptation
InthefollowingcrossͲcuttinganalysis,theywillbereferredtoastheobjectivity—
relevancepaper(1);thescientist—mediapaper(2);thearchitectpaper(3);andthe localadministrationpaper(4).
Thefirsttwopapersfocusonthescientistperspectiveandshowinwhatways relevance, use, and usefulness issues were viewed and addressed by climate scientists; the first concerning itself with the relationship between relevance concernsandobjectivityconcerns,thesecondwithscientists’“imaginedpublics’and challengestiedtomassmediacommunicationactivities.
Thelasttwopapersexaminetheuserperspective.Thefirstofthemexaminehow architectsmadesenseoftheissueofclimateadaptationwithfocusonhowideas aboutprofessionalidentityandcontextinfluencedthissensemaking.Thelastofthe papersexaminedlocalgovernmentadministrationemployees’viewofthematter, withfocusonhowexistinginstitutionalcontextandusers’ideasaboutscienceand thescience–laydivideshapedusers’viewsontheusefulnessofclimatescience knowledge.
Paperno.1:Competingconcerns?Howscientistsmanagetherelationshipbetween objectivityworkandrelevancework
Thispaperaddresseshowclimatescientistsviewedandaddressedissuesrelatedto relevanceandusabilityandhowtheyconsideredtherelationshipbetweentheseand scientificquality.Weintroducetheterms‘relevancework’and‘objectivitywork’to describe the scientists’ efforts geared towards being relevant and scientific, respectively;andtodiscusstherelevancebetweenthetwo.Basedonareviewof studiesofchangesinlatemodernscientificpractice,anddrawingontheconceptof
“epistemicdrift”(Elzinga1997),thepaperalsoexplorestheextenttowhichthereis
8
reasontofearthatrelevanceworkdisplacesobjectivitywork,andwhethersuch
“epistemicdrift”isaworryforclimatescientists.
Wefoundthatclimatescientistswereveryconcernedwithrelevanceinthesense thattheywereengagedineffortstomakefactsaccessibleandusefultothepublicas wellasusergroups,buttheydidnot fearthatthisconcernchallenged their objectivity.Relevancewasimportantbecauseitprovidedmeaningtothescientists’
work–withoutengagementinrelevanceworkthescientificeffortmightbeless meaningful.However,objectivitywasseenasaprerequisiteforrelevance.Objectivity workiswhatmakessomethingscience,andsciencebeingscienceisaprerequisitefor sciencebeingrelevant.Withoutafocusonobjectivitywork,theywouldlackareliable andtrustworthybasisfromwhichtocommunicate,andtheywouldbeunableto providerelevantknowledgetousers.
Toacertaindegree,anunderstandingofrelevanceasalmostinherentin“good science”wasprominentamongthescientistsweinterviewed,thatis:goodscience wasseenas(potentially)useful.However,thescientistsalsoexpressedaviewthat sciencecouldbecomeevenmoreusefulbybeing“tailored”touser’sneeds,inthe senseofaddressingresearchthemesofinteresttothepublic(indicatedbyResearch Councilprograms),orevenmorespecifically,engageindialogueprojectswhere scientistsinteractedmoredirectlywithusersin,inordertoarriveatresearch questionsthatwouldbedirectlyrelevanttotheknowledgeneedsofe.g.,local governmentadministration.
Thus,thescientistsshowedsignsofadheringtotwodifferentmodelsofscience communication/knowledgetransfer:amonologuemodelwithsimilaritiesofthe
“trickledown”understandingofknowledgetransferdescribedbyRogers(1995)– exemplifiedbyhowthescientistsrelevanceworkwasmainlyorientedtowards educatingthegeneralpublic,politicians,andprofessionalspotentiallyengagedin climatemitigationand/oradaption,withthenewsmediaasthemainchannel–and adialoguemodelwithmuchincommonwithapproachestosciencecommunication describedinthepublicengagementliterature(see,e.g.,Irwin2008,foranoverview).
Thus,relevanceworkdoesnotdisplaceobjectivitywork,andwedidnotfind evidenceofepistemicdrift:relevanceworkdidnotrepresentapressuretowardsa relaxation ofscientificnormsor objectivity workstandards.Rather,thestrive towardsrelevancemadeobjectivityworkevenmoreimportant,notbecausethe demandforrelevancewasathreattotheactualdoingofscience,butbecauseofthe scientists’concernabouthowengagementinrelevanceworkmightbeperceivedby outsiders.Engagementinrelevanceworkcouldtaintthestandingofscientists
9
becausetheycouldbeperceivedtobetoomuchinvolvedwithpolicyͲmaking.Thisis perhapsthereasonwhyscientistsfeltaneedtostresstheirobjectivitywork,even thoughtheydidnotthemselvesfearepistemicdrift.Forexample,intheiraccountsof
“tailoring”Ͳstylerelevancework,thescientistsunderscoredhowtheyadheredto traditionalscientificnormsintheirquestsfornewfactualknowledge–forexample howtheyretainedcontroloverchoiceofmethodsandtheformulationofuser’s concernsinto“doable”researchquestions.
Toconclude,climatescientistsareverymuchconcernedwithrelevance,inthesense thattheyaimtodogoodscienceonissuespeoplecareabout,answersociety’s knowledgeneeds/questions,andcommunicatetheirfindingsasmuchaspossible.It doesnot,however,appeartohaveanimpactontheiridentityasscientists,besides thefactthatitgivesmeaningtotheirwork,becauseitisnotseenaschangingthe doingofscience.Relevance,then,isinasense“external”tosciencebesidesthe inherentrelevance“goodscience”initselfpossesses.
Paper no. 2:Controlling communication? Scientists’accounts of their media strategies
ThispaperprovidesamoreinͲdepthstudyofoneoftheclimatescientists’relevance work strategies: the communication of climate science knowledge (including boundaryworkdistinguishingclimatescienceexpertsfromnonͲexperts)throughthe newsmedia.Startingfromthe2009“Climategate”incidentasasymptomofa (potential)crisisoftrustforclimatescientists,thisstudyexaminesclimatescientists’
views on media science communication and their strategies for dealing with journalistsandclimatedeniersor“climateskeptics.”2Drawingonscholarlycallsfor openness and public engagement, particularly the concept of “socially robust knowledge,”thisarticlediscusseshowclimatescientistsweighconcernsofcontrol, opennessandtransparencywhenconsideringhowtobestcommunicatewiththe publicthroughthemassmedia.
Theobjectivity—relevancepapershowedhowclimatescientistssawnoproblematic relationshipbetweenrelevanceworkandobjectivityworkinthe‘doing’ofscience, butpointedoutthatthescientistswereapprehensiveaboutrelevanceworkinthe contextof‘explaining’theirscience,especiallyinmediacontexts.Therelationship betweenclimatescienceandthemassmediacanbecharacterizedbythelabel
2Whenexaminingthe‘Climategatedebate’,Nerlich(2010)foundthat‘climateskeptic’and‘climate skepticism’werecommonlyusedassynonymsfor‘climatedenier.’Likeher,Ialsouse‘climate skeptic’hereinthesenseof‘climatedeniers,’althoughtherearedifferencesbetweenthetwo,as pointedoutbyShermer(2010)andKempetal.(2010).
10
“medialization” (Weingart2005;Schäfer, 2009)–involvingincreasedcoverage, increasednumberof(nonͲscience)actorsinthedebate,andincreaseddegreeof reportedcontroversyinthemassmediacoverageofclimatescience,andthispaper examineshowachargedcontextofreceptioninfluencesscientists’dealingswiththe newsmedia.
Amajorconcernamongtheclimatescientistswastheirworrythatthegeneralpublic lackedsufficientknowledgeaboutclimatechangeandclimatescience.Theyfelt obligedtotrytocounterthisdeficitbyinformingabouttheirresearchthroughthe newsmedia.However,theseinformationattemptswereundertakenwiththeexplicit understandingthatclimateskepticswouldscrutinizeeverydetailoftheirarguments, lookingformistakestheycouldusetoundotheproofsandunderminepublictrustin climatescience.Thissituationdemonstratesanimportantweaknesswiththeconcept ofsocialrobustness,namelytheimplicitassumptionthatsciencecommunication takesplaceinasituationinwhichallpartieshaveapositiveinterestinlearning.I arguethat“sociallyrobustknowledge”neglectsthechallengesof“medialization”of climatescience,andproposethattheclimatescientists’strategycanbetterbe described as attempts to achieve “politically robust” communication,pursuing opennessinacautious,controlledmanner.
Icharacterizetheclimatescientists’effortsasgoingforwhatIwillcallpolitical robustness,whichinvolvedfashioningunassailablestatements,aswellasengagingin publicboundarywork,thatis,toattempttoeducatethepublicaboutthedifference betweenclimatescienceexpertsandnonͲexperts.
Paperno.3:Concernandconfidence.Architectsmakingsenseofclimateadaptation Does climate information impact how architects make sense of the climate adaptationissue?Notmuch,itseems:identityandcontextualfactorsappearedto havemoretosayforhowclimateadaptationwasmadesenseofthanfeaturesofthe issueitself.Althoughafewaspectsof“theissueitself”–ideasabouttherateof climaticchangeandconcernsaboutscientificuncertainty–theseweremainly importantbecauseofthewayinwhichtheywerelinkedtoidentityandcontextͲ relatedfactors.Thearchitectslongedforabuildingprocesswhereseeingwholesand weighingfactorsagainsteachotherweremorecentralthanoptimizationlogics.At thesametime,theywerealsopragmaticallyawareoftherealitiesofeconomyasa determining factor in building processes. Their suggestions for how climate adaptationconcernscouldbeincludedintheirpracticereflectthesetwoaspectsof theirworldview.
11
Whentheymadesenseofarchitects’roleandresponsibilitiesconcerningclimate change,thearchitectsintervieweddrewonanidentitydiscourseIhavechosentocall
“holistic.”Inthisdiscourse,architects’expertisewasseenasencompassingboth aestheticͲcreative dimensions and dimensions related to technicalͲcraftͲrelated aspectsofbuilding.Architects’distinctiveexpertisewasarguedtospringfromtheir abilitytoseethebuildingasawhole.“Gooddesignpractice”wasconceivedas includingthedetectionandidentificationoftheclimaticconditionsofabuildingsite andadaptingthebuildingtothoseconditions.Thisholismidentity–withits appurtenantpracticeideal–wasusedasanargumentforwhyarchitectswouldbe abletotakeinandadapttoclimaticchanges.Severalarchitectsarguedforthe importance of reestablishing a focus on climate adaptation (in the sense of adaptationtocurrentclimaticconditions).Seeninthelightoftheholismidentity discourse,thiscanbeinterpretedasanargumentforrenewingarchitects’statusand influence in the building process – countering a trend towards decreasing professionalinfluenceforarchitects,reportedbybothmyintervieweesandby relevantscholarlyliterature.
Whenarchitectsvoicedconcernabouttheirprofessions’abilitytodealwithclimate change,theyimplicitlyandexplicitlyexpressedconcernaboutdeclininginfluence overthebuildingprocess.Anexampleofsuchconcernwasarchitects’criticismof how allͲencompassing the costͲefficiency focus had become in the industry:
Architectsreportedthattheyhadproposedbuildingqualitieswhichhadbeen brushedasidebecauseofcostconcerns.Theexperience–andexpectation–ofthis situationappearedsocommonthatmanyarchitectsdidnotevensuggestextraͲcost measures,having,inasense,acceptedthe“pragmaticsofpractice”(ImrieandStreet 2011)andsuccumbedtothe“tyrannyoftheproject”(Koch2004).Inmyinterviewees’
opinion,thecostͲreductionfocuswaslargelyresponsibleforcurrentbuildingsbeing ofinsufficientqualityandpoorlyadaptedtocurrentclimate.
ThisconcernfortheallͲencompassingnatureofthecostͲefficiencyfocuswasoneof thecontextualfactorsthatplayedaroleinhowarchitectsmadesenseofclimate adaptation.Whichcontextualfactorsthearchitectssawasimportantwasrelatedto theinterviewees’reasoningaboutwhatactorsheldsufficientpowertopropel–or stall–change.Thiswasnot,ingeneral,seentobearchitects–butbuilders,as exemplifiedabove,andnationalauthorities.Thepowerofnationalauthoritiescanbe illustratedbyhow‘changesinthebuildingregulations’wasseenasoneofthemost importantdriversforchangesinthebuildingindustry,andnationalauthoritieswas seenastheonlyactorpowerfulenoughtocounterthecostͲreductionfocusofthe buildingindustry.Thus,interventionbythenationalauthoritiesintheformofnew
12
regulationswasproposedbysomeintervieweesasapotentialwayofcounteringthe neglectofclimateadaptationthatthecostͲreductionlogiccaused.
Nationalauthoritiesweregenerallytrusted.Thistrustinofficialsources–together withthelackofinclusionofdrasticclimateadaptationmeasuresinthesesources–
appearedtosubstantiatethearchitects’readingofthesituationassomethingthey could address usingtheirtraditional ways of working. In this wayarchitects’
confidenceintheirownabilitytoaddressclimateadaptationwassupported.Thus, cuesthearchitectsderivedfromthenationalbuildingregulations,togetherwiththe holismidentitydiscourse,helpedtrivializethechallengeofclimateadaptation.In contrast,thecostͲefficiencyfocuswasseenasabarriertoadaptation.
Thispointstoaninterestingfeatureofbuildingregulations:theyarepartofthe institutionalframeworkandanactorwithsufficientpowertocounterthecostͲ reductionfocusoftheindustry;atthesametime,theyarealsoa“senseͲgiving”
repositoryofcuesaboutwhatclimateadaptationshouldmeanforarchitectsandthe buildingindustry.Regulationswerelookedtoforcuesastowhichissuesthatshould beconsideredimportant,howtheyshouldbeaddressed,andhowresponsibility shouldbedistributed.Tousesensemakingjargon,theinterviewees’appearedto readofficialsourceslikebuildingregulationsandcodesfor“cues”whichwasthen usedasinputintheirsensemaking.Thus,regulationsplayanimportant,doublerole inarchitects’sensemaking.
This indicates that building regulations influence the way climate science is interpretedandunderstoodatalocallevel,indicatingthattheyplayapartin/have thepotentialtoplayapartincoͲproductionofclimatescience.
Paperno.4:Insufficient,irrelevant,oruseless?Localgovernmentviewsonclimate scienceforclimateadaptation
Didwefindthesamekindofdowntoearthmanagementoftheclimateadaptation issueinthelocaladministrationcase?Thispaper,likethearchitectpaper,examines how(potential)users–inthiscaselocalgovernmentemployees–makesenseof climateadaptationissue,butfocuseditsanalyticattentiononwhetherclimate scienceinformationwasperceivedasuseful.
Thepaperfoundthattheintervieweeshadcognitivelyappropriatedthemainfindings ofclimatescience,butthattheyperceivedthisas“backgroundknowledge”andnot particularlyuseful.‘Usefulknowledge,’inthiscontext,wasunderstoodbythe intervieweesasknowledgeinstrumentallyhelpfulforproblemͲsolving,orknowledge
13
thatcouldhelpauthorizeadaptationmeasures–but,intheinterviewees’opinion climatesciencefellshortwithrespecttoboththesedemands.
Therewasawidespreaduseofclimatescienceasaninformalinterpretativedevice forchangesintheweather–thatis,theyreportedchangesintheweatheras indicatorsofclimatechange,but underscoredthat they themselves werenot qualifiedtoconclusivelyclaimthatthechangestheysawwerecausedbyclimate change.Thus,theywerereluctantto“officially”interpretextremeweatherand naturehazardsasclimatechangeimpacts,andlikewiseto“officially”labelchangesin theirpracticeas“climateadaptationmeasures.”Whileseveralreportedthatthey,to somedegree,hadchangedlocalpracticesinthefaceof,forinstanceincreased precipitation,manyfeltthattheycouldnotlegitimatelylabelthesechangesas climateadaptationmeasures.Manyintervieweesdid,inthisway,expressuncertainty aboutthelegitimateuseofthelabel‘climateadaptation’–inpartbecauseitwasnot, intheiropinion,definedinanyofficialsource(e.g.buildingandplanningregulations), butalsobecausemostoftheintervieweesconsideredthemselveslaypersonswith respecttoclimatescience.Theycalledforguidelinesaswellasanofficialdefinitionof what“climateadaptation”shouldmeanforlocalgovernmentadministration.
Likethearchitects,thelocalgovernmentintervieweeslookedtonewguidelines, regulations,andstandardsfordefinitionsoftheir“reality”–thatis,theirelbowroom andtheirmostpressingconcerns.Theregulationsandguidelinesincludedlittleabout climateadaptation.However,contrarytoarchitects,themunicipalitiesdidnot necessarilyreadthisasacuetorelaxandtrivializetheclimateadaptationchallenge–
rather,itincreasedtheirconcern.
Callsfortheinclusionofclimateadaptationconcernsinplanningandbuilding regulations showthat nationallevel policyͲmakersareexpectedto beagents translatingknowledgeintousefulknowledge–inboththesensesdescribedabove.
Theywereexpectedtoprovidenewnormsandstandardsforlocalgovernmentsin climateadaptionrelevantareasand,bydoingthis,alsohelptodefinetheissueat hand.Clearly,theusefulnessofclimateknowledgedependsonaconstructivecoͲ productionofscienceandpolicy.Thispapershowshowperceptionsofrelevanceand usabilityareshapedbyinstitutionalfactorslikeregulations,guidelinesandbudgets, indicatingthatcoͲordinationofscienceandpolicy–coͲproduction–isnecessaryto achieve“useofclimatescienceknowledge.”
Whatweseeinthiscaseisthat,firstly,thelocalgovernmentintervieweesexpressa wishfornationalinterventionsthathelptomaketheclimateadaptationconcerninto anordinarytask.Thiswasduetotheinterviewees’feelingthattheydidnothavethe
14
authority,power,and/orqualificationstobringthisabout.Secondly,thelabel
“climateadaptation”initselfappearedtocreatesomeproblemsandtohamperthe effortstomakeclimateadaptationintoanordinarytask.
Labelingactivitiesas“climateadaptation”appearedtolinkpracticesandactivitiesto thescientizedphenomenonof“climatechange,”carryingwithitthewholerangeof relocalizationchallenges,amongtheminvisibility,irrelevance,distance,theclimate expert—climateskepticsdebate,andnotleast,thequestionofwhohaveare qualified to interpret weather observations and claim to “observe” climate adaptation(which,wemightwonder,mayperhapsbearesultofclimatescientists’
boundaryworkasdescribedinthescience—mediapaper).
Thelocalgovernmentemployees’reflectionsabouttheirstatusaslaypersonsas opposedtoclimateexpertsthusbecameanimportantelementintheirsensemaking.
TheirreflectionsshareimportantfeatureswithaPublicUnderstandingofScience discoursewhichMichael(1992)havedescribedasthe“ScienceͲinͲGeneraldiscourse,”
somethingIwillreturntoshortly.
*
Thescientistpapersshow,first,thatclimatescientistsareconcernedaboutthe relevanceoftheirresearchandengageinpractices,eventhoughtheymay,inasense, becriticizedfortakingtherelevanceforgranted.Theyworkhardtocommunicate theirresearch,evenwhenthisprovesuncomfortableforthempersonally.Secondly, thesefirsttwopapershavedisplayedapotentialchallengeforclimatescience communicationandtranslation:climateskeptics.Thescientists’fearisthatpeople willbeconfusedbytheclimateskeptics’misleadingmessagesaboutthestateof climateresearch.Arelatedconcernmaybewhetherthewayclimatescientistsshape their communication efforts to avoid “skeptic attacks,” in some ways inhibit translationofclimateknowledge?
Theuserpapers,ontheotherhand,showthattopotentialusersofclimatescience knowledge,theknowledgeisnotobviouslyrelevant.Furthermore,therearemany factors–existinginstitutionalcontext,professionalidentitiesandideasaboutscience andclimatescience,andaspectsoftheavailablescienceinformation–thatshapethe wayinwhichpeopleevaluaterelevance.Furthermore,scientistsarenotparticularly centralintheseevaluations.
Thereis,thus,anasymmetrybetweenthescientist’sengagementwithrelevanceand thewayusersevaluatetherelevanceofclimatescienceknowledge.Howcanwe
makesenseofthis?
15
Theoreticalresources
Whilethenaturalscienceshaveanimportantroletoplayinregardstoclimate changeandclimateadaptation,thereisalsoanincreasingbodyofsocialscience scholarshipinthisfield.Manyscholarshavearguedthatstudyinghowphysical manifestationofchangeare“perceived,experienced,interpreted,andnegotiatedat communitylevels”(CrateandNuttall2009b,394)andhowpeoplerespondandadapt tothe“climatechangeissue”(discourse)arecentralconcerns(seee.g.Crateand Nuttall2009a;Jasanoff2010;RaynerandMalone1998;StraussandOrlove2003;
Adger,Lorenzoni,andO’Brien2009;PielkeJr.andSarewitz2005;Katz,Lammel,and Goloubinoff2002).
TherearemanyexamplesoflocalͲlevelchallengesandbarrierstousingclimate scienceknowledge,likeforecastsandscenarios(Agrawala,Broad,andGuston2001;
Aron2006;Ashfordetal.2006;Callahan,Miles,andFluharty2001;Changnon, Changnon,andChangnon1995;DemerittandLangdon2004;Gawithetal.2009;
GarbrechtandSchneider2007;LahsenandNobre2007;Marshall,Gordon,andAsh 2011;MoserandTribbia2007;PulwartyandMelis2001;PulwartyandRedmond 1997;Rayner,Lach,andIngram2005;Rosentrater2010;Ziervogeletal.2010;
Maibachetal.2008;ShackleyandDeanwood2002).
Threestandardexplanationsforthelackofuseofclimatescienceknowledgefigurein therelevantresearchliterature:Problemswiththeusers,problemswiththescience, and problems with the “knowledge transfer” process.3The most common explanation,istoproblematizetheusersandtheirabilitytounderstandand/orutilize climateresearch(PilliͲSihvolaetal.2010;Aalletal.2009;TribbiaandMoser2008;
ArnellandDelaney2006;Berkhout,Hertin,andGann2006;Shepherd,Tansey,and Dowlatabadi2006;DemerittandLangdon2004;Lemosetal.2002;Shackleyand Deanwood2002).
Althoughmuchofthisliteraturedoesconsiderthesocialcontextinwhichusers encounter science, theymay not problematize “use” or “understanding,” and
“science”enough. BrianWynne(1995)criticizedpositivistPublicUnderstandingof ScienceͲsurveystudiesmeasuringthepublic’stechnicalunderstandingand“correct use”ofscienceforonlyproblematizing“publics”andneglectingtoproblematizethe
“science”and“understanding”of“PublicUnderstandingofScience.”Iwillinthe followingtakeupWynne’schallengetoexaminemorethoroughlywhatrolescience
3Seethelocalgovernmentpaperforamorethoroughoverviewoftheliterature
16
playsin“useofscientificknowledge,”theimpactofdifferentconceptionsof“useof knowledge”andoftheproperinteractionbetweenscienceanditspublicsandusers.
ThesearequestionsthattheinterpretiveorcriticaltraditionofstudiesofPublic UnderstandingofScience(PUS)hasconcerneditselfwith(Michael2002;Wynne 1995).Interpretivestudiesexploretheculturalcontextofpublicunderstandingof scienceandhowpeopleindifferentsocialsettingsexperienceandconstructscience’s meanings.
InterpretivePUSstudiesevolvedfromacritiqueofthepositivistortraditionalPUS, centeredonsurveyresearchforonlyproblematizing‘publics’andtheircognitive processesandcapabilities–deployingadeficitmodel.Wynne(1995)arguethat public“understanding”neednotmeanunderstandingtechnicaldetailsandgeneral conclusions;itmayjustaswellmeanunderstandingscience’smethods,institutional characteristics,orsocialimplications.Furthermore,nonͲusecannotbeexplainedas an issueof narrow, technical“understanding” alone. Peoplealwaysencounter
“science”inasocialcontext,andscientificknowledgemayturnoutbeculturally uselessasaresultofthe“seeminglyincommensurableculturalpreconceptionsand commitments” (Michael 2002, 360Ͳ361) of scientists’ and laypeople’s worlds.
Laypeoplemayignorescientificknowledgebecausetheyregarditasirrelevant,or knowledgemayberejectedorignoredasuseless“intheabsenceofthenecessary socialopportunity,power,orresourcestouseit”(Wynne1995,363).Oneway interpretivePUSmayhelpusunderstandtheproblemathandis,thus,througha focusonthelocalsocial,cultural,andpracticalusabilityandrelevance–orlackof such–ofscientificknowledge(e.g.,Sørensen,Aune,andHatling2000).NonͲuseof climate science knowledge might be caused by lack of usability, irrelevance, inaccessibility,orbylackofsocialopportunities,powerorresourcestouseit.
AnotherlineofPUSͲstudiesthatprovideadifferentunderstandingfornonͲuse,is Michael’s(1992)examinationofthewaysinwhichlaypersonsdifferentiatebetween scienceandselfwhentheytalkaboutscience.Michael(1992)describetwomain waysinwhichpeopletalkaboutscience:thescienceͲinͲgeneraldiscourseandthe scienceͲinͲparticulardiscourse.Bothdistinguishbetweenthescientificandthelay world,butindifferentways.InthescienceͲinͲgeneraldiscourse,scienceisimbued withcriteriaforwhatcancountasscientificknowledgesostrictthatlaypeoplecan neverhopetorealizethem.Scienceis,inthisdiscourse,definedbyessential characteristics–particularlyscientificmethodsanda“scientificmind”orwayof thinking–thatsetsitapartfromlaypeople,wholacksuchknowledgeorcognitive capacities.Theknowledgelaypeoplepossess,cannot(intheirownestimation)be
17
considered“realscience”(Michael1992,318).Comparedtothis,thescienceͲinͲ particulardiscourse also distinguishes between science and lay, but here the distinctionisnotexplainedasinherentdifferences.Rather,itisseenasa(pragmatic)
“divisionoflabor”(Michael1992,321).Whenpeopleexpress“ignorance”inthis framework,theignoranceisnotascribedtoaninabilitytograspthescientificinsights, butratherreflectarelationshipwheretheresponsibilityofknowingisascribedtothe experts. Following Michael’s argument, we might expect that lay persons’
explanationsforadistance(orlackofsuch)betweenscientificexpertsandnonͲ experts,willinfluencehowtheyrelatetoandinteractwithscience.Seeninthislight, nonͲuseofclimatescienceorignoranceclaimsaboutsaidknowledgemayspring fromideasaboutadivisionoflaborbetweenscientificexpertsorfromlayͲpeople’s selfͲexclusionfromthegroupofpeoplewhocanspeaklegitimatelyaboutclimate science.
ThesearetwowaysinwhichPUSstudiesproblematize“understanding.”Thereare alsostudiesfromthislineofinquirythatturnstheirgazetoscienceitself,and examinehowscientistsunderstandtheirpublics.Severalscholarsexplore“scientists’
understandingofthepublic”(YoungandMatthews2007;e.g.,Blok,Jensen,and Kaltoft2008;Hilgartner1990;HollimanandJensen2009;Marantaetal.2003;Wynne 1993;MichaelandBrown2000).Justlikeideasaboutpublicsandscience,andthe relationshipbetweenthetwo,shapethepublic’sinteractionwithandrelationshipto science,expertiseandknowledge(Blok,Jensen,andKaltoft2008;Michael1992, 1996),suchideasalsoshapescientists’communicationandinteractionwiththe public(seeBlok,Jensen,andKaltoft2008;Hilgartner1990;HollimanandJensen2009;
Marantaetal.2003;Wynne1993;MichaelandBrown2000).Marantaetal.(2003) usetheterm“imaginedpublics”todescribescientists’representationofthepublic.
MichaelandBrown(2000)takethelineofargumentevenfurtherandarguethat scientificdiscourse,evenwhenitisnotparticularlyconcernedwithpublics,ineffect constructsandperformsakindof“laypoliticalscience.”Theyarguethatscientific discourseconstructsnotonlynature,scientificfacts,arguments,procedures,and communities,“butalsoversionsoflaypublics,policydomains,scienceproper(…) [and]particularmodelsof theappropriateformthat shouldbe takenbythe interaction”(2000,3).Thisresultsinideasaboutthe“interaction,interfaces,orforms of dialogue that do and/or should pertain between science and nonͲscience constituencies,especiallythelaypublic”(2000,3).
Wynne(1995,363)arguesthatscientistsoftenassumethattheirresearchisrelevant, regardlessofthechallengesoflocal,societalrelevancesketchedabove.Ifthereis littlecontactbetweenscientistsandusers,then–betweenusersandproducersof
18
knowledge–scientistsmayendupprovidingknowledgethatisirrelevanttousers’
needs(McNie2007;SarewitzandPielke2007).Acommonwayofunderstanding knowledgetransfer:thelinearmodel–inwhichscientistsprovide(automatically relevant)researchanddisseminatesit,anddecisionͲmakersandthepublictakeitup, takeitintoaccountandputittouse–is,manyargue,alargepartoftheproblem (McNie2007;SarewitzandPielke2007;LahsenandNobre2007;Beck2011).The linearmodelisnotonlyaproblembecauseitmaypropeltheproductionofirrelevant knowledge,butalsobecauseinvitesinactiononthepartoftheusers(Wynne2010;
Dessaietal.2009;SarewitzandPielkeJr.2000,18).LahsenandNobre(2007)even showhowthis“linearmodel”isinstitutionalized,indicatingthatthisisahardͲtoͲ abate,deepͲseatedproblem.
Jasanoff(2010)takesthiscritiqueonestepfurther,andsuggestthatclimatescience knowledgemayfaceparticularchallengesbecauseoffeaturesofclimatescience.She suggeststhattheestablishmentofclimatechangeasanabstract,globalphenomenon hasdetachedknowledgefrommeaning.Thisishardtoabate,notonlybecauseitis institutionalized(Miller2004a,2001b;Shackleyetal.1998),butbecauseofthevery practicesthathasbeensosuccessfulinsecuringscience’scognitiveauthority.This includesscience’sabilityto“wrench”phenomenaoutoftheirspecificcontexts,and makeideasandobjects“thatreflectnoone’sunmediatedobservationsoftheworld andyetarerecognizedandacceptedasreal”(Jasanoff2010,234).Thesefeaturesare nowpartofwhatisdestabilizingclimatechangeknowledge.The“impersonal, apolitical,anduniversalimaginaryofclimatechangeprojectedbyscience”comes intoconflictwiththe“subjective,situatedandnormativeimaginationsofhuman actorsengagingwithnature”(Jasanoff2010,233).
Partoftheproblemwithclimatescience,inJasanoff’s(2010)view,isthatitis somehowinherentlycutofffromlocalrelevance.Thus,ifwearetodoanythingabout theclimateproblem,more(irrelevant)sciencewillnothelpus.Thisfeedsinto anotherstrandofresearchfromScienceandTechnologystudies,thatofDaniel Sarewitz(2010,2004,2011)(andtosomedegree,NaomiOreskes2004).Effective actiononclimaterequiresbetterpolitics,notbetterscience,explainsDanielSarewitz (2010).Somefindingsfromstudiesofpublicunderstandingoftheclimateproblem alsopointinthisdirection.Forinstance,Ryghaug,HoltanSørensen,andNæss(2011) findthatlackofpoliticalfollowͲupmakespeopledoubttheseverityoftheclimate problem.Thisindicatesthatpoliticalactionmaybecrucial,likeSarewitzindicates, contrarytothecommon,“perverselyselfͲfulfillingpoliticalassertionthat‘wecannot takethepoliticalriskofradicalpositivepolicyactions,becausecitizenswillnotaccept it’”(Wynne2010,301).
19
Anothercommonexplanationfortherelocalizationchallengesofclimatescienceisits invisibility(Giddens2009;Ungar2000;Beck2009):thatoneofthereasonsthe climateissuefailstohaveanimpactonpolicyandonpeople’slivesisthatitis invisible,knowableonly“withtheaidofscience”(Jasanoff2010,235).However, unlikeotherinvisibleproblems(seeBeck1992;2009,forexamples),onecanargue thatclimatechangeisalsoverymuchvisiblethroughweatherandotherclimateͲ relatednaturalprocesses(StraussandOrlove2003;SolliandRyghaug2008;Yusoff andGabrys2011).However,thelinksbetweenweatherandclimateareunclear.
Hence,climatechangeis,inasense,atthesametimebothvisibleandinvisible, tangibleandintangible,bothknowablethroughexperienceandknowableonly throughscience.
Thissuggeststhatthewaysinwhichpeoplegraspclimatechangearearesultnotof eitherscienceorthesocial,butboth.Jasanoff(2004a,2)arguethatwegain explanatorypowerbyconsideringthescientificandthesocialtogether.
CoͲproduction is the studyof the “necessary parallelism between goings on”
(Jasanoff2004b,30)inknowledgeandgovernancepractices.InacoͲproduction framework–the“reality”andrelevanceofscienceisnotbroughtaboutsolelyby sciencebutalsobysocialorganization.CoͲproductiongoesbeyondtheclassiclinear model’sdiagnosistherehastobesomethingwrongwitheitherthescience,theusers, theprocess,orthecontext.ThepointofthinkingaboutthisascoͲproductionisthat, inordertounderstandthisinameaningfulway,weneedtoexaminethewaythese elements–togetherwithinstitutions,discourses,identities,andrepresentations– worktogetherandreciprocallyinfluenceeachother.Relocalizationproblemsand nonͲuseofclimatescienceknowledgeisseennotasthefaultofanyoneactor,butas aresultofthewayinwhichtheseelementsworktogether.Sarewitz’(2010)callfor climatepolicymorethanbetterscienceis,initsessence,acallforcoͲproduction—for politicalinstitutions,identities,discoursesandrepresentationsthatmakesomething happen. To think of this asa coͲproductionproblem entails that if scientific knowledgeaboutclimatechangeistoresultinviablechangeinmanagement strategiesine.g.localgovernmentdecisionͲmaking,changesininstitutionsare necessary.Incontrasttostudieswhichseesuchinstitutionalchangesaschangesin the “context” of scientific knowledge, a coͲproduction view holds that such institutional changes that back up scientific findings and enables changes in managementstrategiesthatareinlinewithwhatthesciencesaysarenotjust changesinthecontext,butthattheymakethesciencemore“real.”
20
CoͲproductionprocessesoftentaketheformofthemakingofidentities,themaking ofinstitutions,themakingofdiscoursesandthemakingofrepresentations.Atthe sametime,identities,institutions,discoursesandrepresentationsalsooftenserveas
“orderinginstruments”thatstructuretheunknownincasesofchaosanduncertainty.
Theseorderinginstrumentscan“dividetheworldofhybridsandcyborgsintoless ambiguouscategoriesthatcaneasilybedealtwithinlawandcustom,”(Jasanoff 2004b,38Ͳ39),helpalongtheaccommodationofnewknowledgesandtechnological capabilitieswithouttearingapartthelegitimacyofexistingsocialarrangements (Jasanoff2004b,39),“andalsodometaphysicalworkinpreservingcriticalboundaries betweenselfandother,structureandagency,stateandcitizen”(Jasanoff2004b,38Ͳ 39).Insuchways,theyaremorally,metaphysically,politically,andsymbolically sustaining.
JasanoffarguesthatcoͲproductionisnota“theory,”but“awayofinterpretingand accountingforcomplexphenomenasoastoavoidthestrategicdeletionsand omissionsofmostotherapproachesinthesocialsciences”(Jasanoff2004a,3);a holistic,notapiecemeal,wayofthinkingaboutissues;an“idiom”ratherthana concept;atooltohelpusthinkratherthanarigidframeworkimposingaforegone conclusiononeverynewsituation.However,Jasanoff’spresentationoftheidiomof coͲproductionisnotsufficienttohelpusfullyrealizeherambitionfortheconcept.
Althoughhertheoreticalchapterisonlythefirstinabookprovidingseveralstudies labeledcoͲproductionstudies(Jasanoff2004c),whichshearguesareexemplarsto drawinspirationfromforotherstudiesofcoͲproduction,Ihavechosentodrawon anotherresourceinordertoattempttofollowuponherrequesttothinkholistically aboutissues:organizationalsensemaking(Weick1995).Jasanoff’sfocusonidentities, institutions,discoursesandrepresentationsasafruitfulstartingpointforanalysisis helpful,butthesethemes–andtheinteractionbetweenthem–arealsocoveredin Weick’s(1995)accountoforganizationalsensemaking.ThestrengthofJasanoff’s (2004b)approachisthatshepaysparticularattentiontotheparallelismsandthe interactionbetweenscienceandpolicy.Thelimittoherapproachisthatthismight overshadow other important elements to situations of sensemaking – like professionalidentities,chancehappenings,surprisesfromothersourcesthanpolicy andscience,etc. Ͳ whichWeick’sapproach alertsus to.Takentogether, the sensemakingapproachandthecoͲproductionapproachmaybeafruitfulsetof strategiestoapproachtheissueoftherelocalizationchallengesofclimatescience, indeed.
Ihavefoundtheanalyticapproachoforganizationalsensemakingtobeausefultool inthismoreinͲdepthcoͲproductionanalysis.Thesensemakingframeworkurgesusto
21
payattentiontohowforinstanceidentity,language,ideasaboutothers,rulesand routinesshape thewaypeople perceive,makenoteof,interpretandact on phenomena—inshort,howtheymakesenseofthings.4Strippedtothebone, sensemakingisaboutconnectingsomeelement(cue)toalargermeaning(vocabulary, frame).Weick(1995)emphasizessevencharacteristicsofsensemaking,andthisishis definitionofit:asaprocessthatisgroundedinidentityconstruction,retrospective, enacted,social,ongoing,focusedonandbyextractedcues,andconcernedwith plausibilityratherthanaccuracy.
Therearemanyparallelsbetweenorganizationalsensemaking,asdefinedbyWeick (1995), and the Jasanoff’s coͲproduction approach. Not least, they are both concernedwith“structuringtheunknown”(Waterman,1990,p.41,quotedinWeick 1995,p.4),andbothsensemakingandcoͲproductionaremostvisibleinsituationsof instabilityandbreakdown,interruptionoftheongoingflowofthings(Weick,1995), theemergenceofnewphenomena(Jasanoff2004),orsituationsofcontroversy (Jasanoff2004).
Furthermore,echoesofthe“orderinginstruments”ofcoͲproductionarefoundinthe sensemakingframework.Forone,bothcoͲproductionandsensemakingisconcerned withidentity,bothhowitcanhelpstabilizesomethingnewandunknown,andhowit mayitselfbeinneedofstabilization/sensemaking.Secondly,Jasanoff’sattentionto languagehasitsparallelinWeick’sdiscussionofthesubstanceofsensemaking(pp.
106Ͳ132)aswellasinhisdiscussionofthesocialqualityofsensemakingprocesses (pp.38Ͳ43).“Wordsinducestableconnections,establishstableentitiestowhich peoplecanorient(…),bindpeople’stimetoprojects(…),andsignifyimportant information,”Weickquoteshimself(1985:128,quotedinWeick1995,41).Thirdly, Jasanoff’sconcernwithhowinstitutionsput“thingsintheirplaceattimesof uncertaintyanddisorder”(2004b,39Ͳ40)ismoreorlesscoveredbyWeick’swhole book:hismainconcernissensemakinginorganizations,andhealsopointsoutthat thereareimportantparallelsbetweenorganizationsandsensemakingprocesses:“To organizeistoimposeorder,counteractdeviations,simplifyandconnect,andthe sameholdstruewhenpeoplemaytrytomakesense”(1995,82).Thisresonates nicelywithJasanoff’sdescriptionofhow,
Throughinstitutionssuchaslegalsystemsandresearchlaboratories, societieshaveaccesstotriedͲandͲtruerepertoiresofproblemͲsolving, includingpreferredformsofexpertise,processofinquiry,methodsof securingcredibility,andmechanismsforairingandmanagingdissent.
4Seethearchitectpaperforamoreonsensemaking.
22
Solidifiedintheformofadministrativeroutines,theserepertoiresoffer constantfallͲbackpositionsfromwhichresponsestonovelproblemscan beconstructed.(2004b,40)
Lastly,representations–intheformofgeneralizedothers,prototypes,stereotypes, androles–alsoplayimportantrolesinsensemaking,asisapparentinWeick’s discussionofsensemakingasasocialactivity(pp.38Ͳ43).Thus,the“ordering instruments”ofcoͲproductionareattendedtoinasensemakingframework.
Also,insightsfrompublicunderstandingofscience(PUS)resonatenicelywithWeick’
descriptionsofsensemakingprocesses.WhenWeickemphasizeshowtheimagined orimpliedpresenceofothers,notonlyactualpresence,isimportantinshaping interpretationandaction,thisisessentiallythesameargumentthatMarantaetal.
(2003)putforthwhentheyarguetheimportanceofpayingattentiontoscientists’
“imaginedpublics.”WhenWeickemphasizesboththeimportanceofselfͲidentityand theimportanceofstereotypesandthegeneralizedothers,thisresonatesnicelywith Michael’s(1992)descriptionofthescienceͲinͲgeneraldiscourse,inwhichbotha stereotypical view ofscientificmethod and wayofthinking and animagined, explicitlyunͲscientificlayidentityservetoexcludelaypeoplefromtherealmof science.Weickisalsoveryattentivetocontext,asthethingbywhichthesignificance ofsomething(forinstanceaknowledgeobject)isjudged.Thisresonatesnicelywith interpretative PUS studies’ focus on exploring the cultural context of public understandingofscienceandhowpeopleindifferentsocialcontextsexperienceand construct science’s meaning (Michael 2002; Wynne 1995). Thus, the Public understandingofscienceapproachtiesinwithsensemaking(andcoͲproductionfor thatmatter)throughitsconcernforlayandexpertidentities(ingeneralseenfromlay persons’perspective)and(laypersons)discoursesonscience.
Itiswithintheframeworkofthesethreeapproaches–Publicunderstandingof science,coͲproduction,andorganizationalsensemaking–thatIpositionmythesis.
Theabovediscussion hasprovidedthreemainideas to pursueinmyfurther discussionofthepaperstakentogether.
First,concerningclimatescientists,PUSstudiesindicatedthatimaginedpublicsand envisions of appropriate modes ofinteraction with users andlaypeoplehave potentialeffectsontherelevanceoftheresearch–perceivedoractual.Second, concerning“lay”usersofclimatescienceresults,PUSstudiesindicatethatwemight findlackoflocalrelevance,lackofusability,orlackofabilityͲtoͲuse;orthatwemight findwaysofunderstandingsciencethateitherdelegatetheresponsibilityofknowing
23
tootheractors,orexcludesactorsfromthegroupofpeopleentitledtoanopinionon climateknowledgequestions.
Third,followingtheidiomofcoͲproductionwecanlookforinstitutions,identities, discourses,andrepresentations thatbackupstabilizeclimate sciencefindings, makingsomethinghappen,butwecanalso,ifweusethestrengthsofsensemaking approach, examine the workings of institutions, identities, discourses, and representationmoreinͲdepthattheuserlevel,wecanexaminesomeofthemicroͲ processesthatshapeandstabilizelocalinterpretationsofwhatclimateadaptationis andhowitcanbedealtwith.
Theclimateadaptationimpasse: failedcoͲproduction ofknowledgeand politics?
Inwhatwaysdoclimatescientistsengageinmakingtheirsciencerelevant?Thetwo sciencepapersfoundthatclimatescientistshavefour“imaginedaudiences”inmind fortheireffortstocommunicateclimatescienceknowledge:thegeneralpublic, professionalusers,politicians/decisionmakers,andtosomedegreejournalists.Tied totheseimaginedpublics werethreemodels ofinteraction,describedinthe objectivity—relevancepaper;informingandeducatingthepublic,politicians,and journalists;anapproachinvolvingdialoguewithprofessionalusersandthetailoring ofknowledgeandresearchquestionstotheirneeds.Inaddition,wecanseea
“defaultmode”ofprovidingknowledgetothosewhoareinterested.
Inherentinthemodesofinteractionwerealsoviewsoftherelevanceoftheclimate scienceknowledge:Intheprovideapproachrelevanceispresupposedasimplicitand
“automatic.” The same holds, to some degree, for the informationͲeducation approach:theknowledgeshouldberelevantandofinteresttothepublic,butpeople forget,sotheissuehastobekeptontheagenda.InthedialogueͲtailoringapproach, however,relevanceisnotautomatic.Althoughclimateknowledgeispresumedto havethepotentialtoberelevant,achievingthisinpracticeisseenasharderand, potentially,timeconsuming.Inthismodel,relevancecanbe reachedthrough technical“tailoring”ofexistingknowledgeornewresearchquestionstotheneedsof users.Throughdialogueitispresumedthatscientistscanmanagetounderstandthe users’needsandtranslatetheseinto“doable”(Fujimura1996)researchquestions.
Theintervieweesinvolvedinthis,experiencedthesedialogueeffortsassuccessful,if timeconsuming.
Inadditiontothefourimaginedaudiencesdescribedabove,climateskepticsplayeda centralroleinshapingtheclimatescientists’communicationstrategies–especially
24
thecommunicationtakingplacepublicly–inthenewsmedia,butalsotalksand lectures.The“interaction”withclimateskepticstookanegativeform:climate scientiststryingtoshapestatementsinsuchawaythatmisuseandfindͲfaultsͲattacks wereavoided;education,tosomedegree,intheformofarguingbackandtryingto gettheskepticsto“seereason;”andlastly,butveryimportant,boundarywork– educatingthepublicabouttheproperdelimitationbetweenclimateexpertandlay, sotheywerenotseducedbytheclimateskeptics’claims.Intheeyesoftheclimate scientists,themainproblemwithclimateskepticswasthattheyconfusedthegeneral public about the facts of climate change, thus,mainly as a problem to the informationͲeducationapproach.However,itmaybethatalsotheresponseof climatescientiststothepresenceofclimateskeptics–boundarywork–have exacerbatedrelocalizationproblems,apointIwillreturntoshortly.
Obviously,scientistsmakeanefforttoberelevant.Howaretheseeffortsperceived bytheuserside?Onethingthattheuserpapersshowveryclearlyisthatscientists werenotascentraltoquestionsofclimateadaptationasonemighthaveexpected.
Boththearchitectsandthelocalgovernmentemployeescalledforothertranslation agentsbesidesclimatescientists–thatis,theycalledfornationallevelbuildingand planningregulationtosettlethequestionsofwhattoadapttoandhow,questions thatscientistscouldbeexpectedtoanswer.Althoughlackofpracticallocalrelevance andusabilityofclimatescienceknowledgewaspointedoutasaproblem,lackofthe socialopportunities,powerorresourcestouseit–inshort,lackofabilityͲtoͲuse– waspointedoutasthemain“barrier”toknowledgeuse.Thecallforregulation shouldalsobeunderstoodinlightofthis.Notonlywereregulationsunderstoodasa potentialwayoftranslatingor“operationalizing”climatescienceknowledgeby providingtechnicaldataandnumbersdirectlyapplicableindailypractice,regulatory requirementwerealsoseenasempoweringandenablinginthesensethattheycould beusedtopoundthetable,cutdebateshort,and“force”theinclusionofclimate adaptationmeasuresandthusthe“use”ofclimatescienceknowledge.
TheabovecallforregulationcanbeinterpretedasanexampleofwhatMichaelcalled a“divisionoflabor”understandingoftherelationshipbetweenusersandproducers orknowledge.However,therewasanimportantexception:theonesgiventhe responsibilityfor“knowing”andformakingknowledgerelevantwerenotonly scientistbut,toaverylargedegree,nationalauthorities.
Theinterviewedarchitectsmainlyappearedtoadheretoadiscourseinwhichthe maindifferenceofimportancebetweenclimatescientistsandthemselvesweresuch adivisionoflabor–adelegatedresponsibilityforknowing.Severalofthelocal
25
governmentinterviewees,ontheotherhand,employedalackͲofͲscientificͲmindand lackͲofͲtheͲrightͲmethodsexplanationfortheexpert—layreminiscentofMichael’s (1992)scienceͲinͲgeneraldiscourse.
Mainly,suchexclusioncenteredondiscussionsaboutwhetherobservedchangesin theweathercouldbesaidtobeobservationsof“climatechange”ornot,5andabout whethermeasurestakenbasedonobservationsofworsenedweatherconditions couldbecalled“climateadaptation.”TheemploymentofascienceͲinͲgenerallike discoursetotalkaboutclimatescience,hadtheeffectthatthelocalgovernment employeesexcludedthemselvesfromthegroupofpeopleabletodecidewhether andhowtheweathertheyobservecanbetiedtoclimatechange.Moreover,the thoughtofhaving to decide whether andwhen climate science results were sufficientlycertaintobeusableasbasisfordecisionͲmaking,madeseverallocal governmentemployeesuneasy.Surprisingly,thesolutionproposedbythelocal administrationuserstomanagetheseconundrumswastocallformoreandupdated regulations.
Together,theseexamplesofrelocalizationchallenges–relevance,usability,abilityͲ toͲuse,ideasaboutdivisionoflabor,andselfͲexclusionfromthegroupofpeople knowledgeableabouttheclimate–showthatmoreandbetterknowledgewillnotbe enoughtoensureclimateadaptation.Politicalaction,forexampleintheformof regulationandcodes,willalsobeimportant.Doesthismeanthattheproblemat handisacoͲproductionproblem?
Ifwesearchforclimateadaptation“orderinginstruments”–stabilizingidentities, institutions,discourses,orrepresentations–inlinewiththecoͲproductionapproach (Jasanoff2004b),itseemsthatclimateadaptationlacksthem.Thismightindicate
5Theargumentsthelocalgovernmentemployeesusedtoexcludethemselvesfrom thegroupofpeopleentitledto“observe”climatechange,bearmuchresemblanceto theclimatescientists’boundaryworkstrategiesdescribedabove.Wemighttherefore wonderifthisexclusionisnotperhapsaneffectofthelocalgovernmentemployees having appropriated the climate scientists’ boundaryͲworkͲdistinction between scientistsandlaypeople.Ifthisisthecase,itisaturnofeventsthatshares similaritieswithBeck’snotionofreflexivemodernization,whichinvolvethesuccesses ofmodernizationcomingbacktohauntit.Thelocaladministrationpaperseemto showaparalleltendencyregardingscientistsboundarywork;thatis,thatthesuccess oftheclimatescientists’boundaryworkinestablishingalay—sciencedividemaybe increasingtheproblemofrelocalizingclimatescienceknowledge.
26
thattheproblemisalackofcoͲproduction.Thereappearedtobeconfusionabout whatclimateadaptationshouldentailandmean,howitshouldbedone,andby whom.Thus,adefinite‘climateadapter’identityappearedtobelacking.Although thearchitectsarguethatclimateadaptationwasalreadypartoftheirprofessional identity,thiswaswithcurrentclimateinmind,andbuiltonaconceptionofclimate changeashappeningslowlyandmanageably.Theabsenceofaclimateadapter identitywasperhapsmorekeenlyfeltamonglocalgovernmentemployees,whofelt thattheyshouldperhapsassumesucharole,butwereveryuncertainaboutwhat sucharoleshouldentail.Similarly,itappearedtobeunclearwhichinstitutions– whetherresearchers,nationaladministrationinstitutions,orothers–were,orshould be,responsibleforclimateadaptation,indicatingalackof“climateadaptation institutions.”Suchinstitutionswerecalledfor.Forinstance,botharchitectsandlocal governmentemployeescalledforregulationswhichincludedclimateadaptation concerns. We also saw in the interviews with both architects and municipal administratorsthattherewasconfusionaboutwhatexactly‘climateadaptation’
shouldmean.Forinstance,itwashardtodrawthelinebetween“ordinary”measures toaddressweatherͲandnaturalhazardsvulnerability,and“climateadaptation,”
makingclimateadaptation intosomething exceptionalandratherremote.The difficultyofusingweatherobservationsas“proof”ofclimatechangeappearedto playsomeroleinhamperingtherelocalizationofclimate,thusaddingtothe remotenessandintangibilityofclimatechange.Therewasalsoadiscourseonlackof translationofavailableknowledge.
Readinthisway,asasuperficial“checklist”fora“proper”coͲproductionprocessand measuringthewayinwhichtheclimateadaptationissuefallsshort,wemight concludethatthechallengeclimate adaptationisfacing–inlightofthecoͲ productionframework– isto enroll a broadarray of allies, tobring central governmentsintothefold,andtocreatepoliticsthatbackup,certifyandsolidifythe climateadaptationissue.Inthismanner,onewouldmakeitmore“real”andtangible whileatthesametime“depoliticizing”itandprovidinglocalleveluserswithconcrete toolstheycanusetobackuptheirclimateadaptationconcerns.
However,justtopointoutthat“coͲproductionislacking,”seemsunsatisfactory.Part ofwhatmakesthecoͲproductionframeworksofruitfulisthatitcanhelpusstudy thingsbetterbyopeningtheanalysts’eyestoelementsthatmightbeexcludedfrom morestandardanalyticalapproaches.Thisadvantageishardtoutilizewhenthe findingsareofamore“negative”kindasreferredabove.NotingthatcoͲproductionis lackinghardlygivesusaricherunderstandingofthesituationathand.IsthecoͲ productionframeworkuselessforthematterathand,then?Maybenot.Ifwefollow
27
Jasanoff’s(2004b)invitationtoexaminewhatinstitutions,identities,discoursesand representationsdo,e.g.howtheyplayapartindefiningsituations,andhowthey themselvesaredefinedinturn,wecanstillusethestrengthsandtoolsofcoͲ productionanalysistothrowlightonwhat’shappeninghere,especiallyifwe,in parallel,drawonorganizationalsensemaking(Weick1995).
Ifweexaminetheworkingsofinstitutions,identities,discourses,andrepresentations attheuserlevelmoreinͲdepth,touncoversomeofthemicroͲprocessesthatshape andstabilizelocalinterpretationsofwhatclimateadaptationisandhowitcanbe dealtwith–whatdowesee?Weick(1995)arguesthatsense,cuttothebone, consistsofthreeelements:(1)asomething–beitanevent,anaction,and observation,anassignment,oraquestion;(2)somethingbiggerouttherethatitcan beconnectedto–e.g.,aclimatescience,weatherobservations,pastexperiences,“a prototypicalpastmoment”(Weick1995,111),astory,etc.;(3)andthelinkbetween them:“Thecombinationofapastmoment+connection+apresentmomentcreates ameaningfuldefinitionofthepresentsituation”(Weick1995,111).
Problemsofsensemakingcanarisewhenthereisalackofaframeinwhichtoplace theobservation,assignment,event,orquestion,orwhentherearetoomanysuch framesanditisunclearwhichisthemostappropriate.Thefirstsituationisoneof ignoranceoruncertainty–therearetoofewinterpretations,thesecondoneof ambiguity:therearetoomanyinterpretations(Weick1995,99).Athirdproblem mightbeonethatWeickdoesnottouchupon,butwhichneverthelessoccurshere:
theproblemofestablishingthelinkbetweenframeandevent,aswasthecasewhen localgovernmentemployeesexcludedthemselvesfromthegroupofpeopleableto linkweatherobservationstoclimatechange,orchangesinpracticesto“climate adaptation.”
Inthecaseofclimateadaptation,thereappeartobetwomainframesitcanbe linkedto:weatherand“theclimateissue.”Thisappearstocreateasituationof ambiguity.Climateadaptationcanbeandisconnectedtobothatthesametime.
However,sincethelinkbetweenclimatechangeandweatherisunclear,thiscreates ambiguity.
Sinceclimateadaptationlinks–andmaylink–climatechange/climatescienceand theweather,ithasbeenproposedasapotentialsolutiontotherelocalization challenges facing climate science(e.g.YusoffandGabrys 2011;westernͲworld politiciansparaphrasedbyWynne2010).Rightaway,thatsoundssensible:Yussuf andGabrysmaintainthatclimatechangecaneasilybeperceivedasageneral,“global imaginary”(YusoffandGabrys2011,517),orassomethingwithrelevance(only)to
28
distantplacessuchastheArcticorSubͲSaharanAfrica.Adaptation,theyargue,may beabletobringtheclimateissues“home”,showingtherelevanceoftheissuefor every scale and locality, thus making it something “in here”, “entangled in contemporarypracticesandfuturepossibilities”(YusoffandGabrys2011,517).
Linking climate change and weather ties climate change to something with immediateandtangiblerelevance(everybodyhasexperiencewiththeweather)and withawellͲfunctioning“centerofcalculation”(Latour1987,2005)(mostpeopledeal reasonablywithweatherforecastsandthemeteorologicalinstitute).Linkingclimate changetoweathercanbeenabling,becauseitletspeoplebasemeasureson currentlyobservedweather,thusdeferringdiscussionsaboutwhetherwearereally seeingclimatechangesornotwhichmightariseifmeasureswerecalled“climate adaptation.”Thus,adaptationbasedoncurrentweathermaybeclimateadaptation tothosethatneedclimateadaptationtohappenand“commonsense”tothosewho think“climateadaptation”isunnecessary.
Thus,linkingclimateadaptationtotheweathermakeclimateadaptationaswellas climatescienceintosomethingordinary,connectedtoeverydaylife.Thearchitect papershowsexamplesofthis.Thearchitectslinkedclimateadaptationtoweatherin waysthatanchoreditandmadeintoanordinaryconcern.Theyarguedthat,since theirprofessionwasusedtodealingwithweather,architectswouldbeabletohandle climateadaptationaswell.Thelocalgovernmentinterviewees,ontheotherhand, alsomadelinksbetweenclimateadaptationandtheweather,butratherthan simplifytheissueandmakeitnormal,theirlinkingofclimatechangeandweather
“scientized”theweather.Thismadelocalgovernmentintervieweesquestioningtheir ability to link weather observations and climate change, complicating their observationsoftheweather.
Thesetwoverydifferentlinkingsshowhowthisisnotstraightforward.Linking climatechangeandweathermaysimplifytheissuebutalsomakeitmorecomplex.
Inshort,linking(orattemptingtolink)climatechangeandweatherherechanges whatcouldhavebeencommonsenseactivitiesintosomethinglargerandmore challenging.Localgovernmentemployeesarecaughtbetweenscienceassomething complex,distant,exclusive,andpoliticizedandaneedtobringtheissuedownto earth,makingitmanageableandordinary.Whatthisshowsisthatadaptationisnot necessarilysomethingthatcan“ground”theclimatechangeissuelocally.Itisjustas likelythattheclimateissueappearssolargethatitmakestherelatedlocalͲlevel issuestiedtoitloosetheirfoothold.Labelingsomething“climateadaptation”may justaswellconnectthissomethingtothewholescientizedͲpoliticizedclimateͲscience
29
discourse,makingimplementationmoredifficult,noteasier. Labelingsomething whichcouldhavebeenjust“commonsenseandrespectfortheplanningandbuilding act”6(e.g.,maintenanceandheedingweather),mayinitselfchangethings,and potentiallycreatechallenges.Itmayverywellbethatalinkingtogetherofweather andclimate,oroflinking“commonsense”practicessuchasmaintenanceand heedingweathertoclimatechange,canscientizeandcomplicatethem.Linking weatheradaptationandmaintenancetoclimatetiesclimateadaptationtoabodyof knowledgethatischaracterizedbyapparentuncertainty,makingitdifficulttodecide thatsomethingis“certainenough.”Moreover,asthelocaladministrationpaper showed,thislinkingmayreducethenumberofpeoplewiththepowertomakesuch decisionstoclimatescientistsandnationalauthorities.
Weick(1995)stressesthatinambiguoussituations,moreknowledgeorinformation willnotnecessarilybehelpful.
Toresolveconfusion,peopleneedmechanismsthat“enabledebate, clarification,andenactmentmorethansimplyprovidelargeamountsof data”(Daft&Lengel,1986,p.559).(…)Toremoveignorance,more information is required. To remove confusion, a different kind of informationisneeded,namelytheinformationthatisconstructedin faceͲtoͲfaceinteractionthatprovidemultiplecues.(Weick1995,99)
Weick’spointhereresonateswiththepointmadebySarewitz(2010)thateffective actiononclimaterequiresbetterpolitics,notjustbetterscience(seealsoPielkeJr 2007;Sarewitz2004).InWeick’saccountofambiguity,faceͲtoͲfacemeetingsarethe bestwayforward.However,mydataseemstobackSarewitz’(2010)pointthatwhat isneededismorepolitics,ormoreandbetterpolicyoptions(PielkeJr2007).
Weseeanexampleofthepotentialforpoliticstosolvequestionsofambiguityinthe users’callsfortheinclusionofclimateadaptationconcernsinbuildingandplanning regulation.Buildingandplanningregulationswerecentraltohowbotharchitectsand localadministrationemployeesmadesenseofclimateadaptation.Thesensemaking ofclimatechangewasmadedifficultnotonlybythefuzzyrelationshipbetween weatherandclimate(change),butalsobytheapparentlycontradictorysignalsfrom climatescienceandthe institutional context.Regulations were not used only instrumentally – they were also used strategically (Weiss 1979). Even more importantly,theywerereadas“politicaltext,”(MooreandWilson2009,2616;Imrie
66KronholmandStalsberg,researchersfromtheresearchprojectGeoExtreme,inNorwegianclimate informationmagazineKlima3Ͳ2009(p.34)
30
andStreet2011,284)thatis,forcuestoguidesensemakingconcerninghowto respondtotheclimateadaptationcharge.Thusregulationmaynotonlycounterthe
“politicization”ofclimateadaptationandweatherobservationthathappenswhen weatherandclimate,andmaintenanceandclimate,arelinkedintheapplicationof thelabel“climateadaptation.”Itmayalsoremoveambiguityandstabilizethe meaningof“climateadaptation,”servingasan“orderinginstrument”inthecoͲ productionsense.
BasedontheabovecrossͲcuttinganalysis,Ihavetwomainpointstomake:one empiricalandonetheoretical.First,myempiricalanalysisshowsthatthewaysin whichpotentialusersmakesenseoftheclimateadaptationissuemakesithardto solveitwithsciencealone.Thismeansthatmorefocusonpoliticsisnecessary,in particularonbuildingͲandplanningregulationsandbuildingcodes,butalsoonthe necessary,accompanyingfunds.Acallfor“morepolitics”maysoundlikearepetition of“coͲproductionislacking”pointthatIabovecriticizedforbeingalittletoo simplistic–however,thepointhereisamorecomplexone,althoughperhapsalittle convoluted.MypointisnotthatcoͲproductionisnecessarybecausethisisalways,a priorithecase,butbecausetheclimateadaptationisinterpreted,understood,made senseof,andcoͲproducedinsuchawaythatcoͲproduction–inthesenseofpolitics thatcanstabilizetheissueofclimateadaptation–isnecessary.
MytheoreticalpointrelatestothecombinationofthecoͲproductionandthe sensemakingapproachthatIhaveemployedtoarriveatthisconclusion.Myanalysis showshowsensemakingisafruitfulsupplementtocoͲproductionasatheoretical approach,and–perhaps–asawayofstudyingthingsandissuesthatcouldhave beencoͲproduced,butwherethatisnotyetthecase.
31
Methods
Theoverallaimoftheprojectthatthisdissertationispartofwas,initially,tostudy translationandcoͲproductionprocesseslinkedtoclimatescienceknowledge.Since callsforrelevance and usability are more explicit when it comes to climate adaptation(see,e.g.,NOU2006:182006;Giddens2009),climateadaptationwas consideredaninterestingchoiceofcaseforstudyingthesematters.Wewantedto attaininsightintoclimatesciencetranslationprocessesbystudyingtheissuefrom twoangles:climatescientistsandtheirintendedusers.Theplanwastoutilizeclimate scienceinterviewsfromanearlierproject(CopingwiththeThreatofClimateChange, projectmanagerKnutH.Sørensen)andextendthisdatawithnewinterviewsto addressthescienceside;andtoaddressthe(potential)userside,todoatwoͲstep datagatheringprocess,starting,first,withanextensiveroundofrelativelyshort telephoneinterviews–toassesswhatthepracticesofclimateadaptationlookedlike, howmanyengagedinthem,andtostarttoformanideaaboutwhatchallengeswas involvedin“translating”theavailableclimateknowledgeintosomethinguseful–and, secondly,movingontomoreinͲdepthfaceͲtoͲfaceinterviewsaboutthechallenges involved. The choice of such a twoͲstep process with a broadͲscope, more
“preliminary”stageandamore“inͲdepth”secondstage,wasbasedona,perhaps naïve,ideawe–theprojectmanagerKnutSørensen,mycolleagueRobertNæssandI –hadthatclimateadaptationwouldbearelativelydefinitesetofpracticesthatlocal practitionerseitherdidordidnotengagein.
However,achallengearosewhichupturnedthismethodplan.“Climateadaptation”
wasnot,afterall,adefinitesetofpracticestothepractitionersinvolved.Thislackof claritychangedeverything:Theinitialoverarchingresearchquestionforthisproject initiallywas:howisclimatescienceknowledgeappropriated,understood,andused forclimateadaptation(inNorway)?Butwhenmostoftheintervieweesinthe
“preliminary”interviewsraisesomeversionofthequestion“whatdoesclimate adaptationmeananyway,”thisquestionbecomeslessmeaningfulandsensemaking asanoverarchingframe–bothanalyticallyandmethodologically–comestothefore.
Howcanwestudysensemaking?Weick(1995,172)pointsoutgroundedtheoryas one example of methods suited for studying sensemaking. He lists several characteristicssuggestiveofamindsetformethodologywellͲsuitedforinvestigating sensemaking(1995,172Ͳ173)–withthemostcentralbeingthat“observersmobilize asetofmethodologicaltacticsthatenablesthemtodealwithmeaningsratherthan frequencycounts”(1995,173),amongthese:
