What started as an ASI Seed Money project has grown into new research and dialogue on climate science and society. The new published article "Caught in the Fray" is based on interviews with 35 climate scientists. At De Proeverij, researchers and societal partners reflected on the findings and explored citizen assemblies as a participatory form of science communication.
How should climate scientists engage with society at a time when climate change is increasingly part of a polarised public debate? A research initiative supported by Amsterdam Sustainability Institute (ASI) Seed Money is exploring this question not only by studying scientists’ experiences in the public sphere, but also by experimenting with more participatory ways of connecting science and society.
The work, led by researchers connected to the VU Athena Institute, starts from the recognition that communicating climate science involves more than simply making scientific knowledge available. Climate scientists increasingly find themselves navigating questions about advocacy, political engagement, credibility and their own responsibilities as researchers.
The project explores how more dialogical forms of science communication could create space for scientific knowledge to meet citizens’ perspectives and lived experiences.
Caught in the Fray: how climate scientists navigate the public sphere
An important outcome of this work is the publication Caught in the Fray. How Climate Scientists Navigate the Public Sphere, by Victor Avramov, Jaron Harambam, Eline Ramaaker and Willemine Willems.
Based on interviews with 35 climate scientists working in the Netherlands and representing different disciplines and levels of seniority, the study examines how researchers perceive and experience engagement with the public.
The findings reveal different understandings of what a climate scientist’s role in society should be. Some scientists feel compelled to advocate for stronger climate policies or respond to misinformation, while others see their responsibility primarily as producing robust scientific knowledge, leaving political and normative choices to policymakers, activists and other societal actors.
These different positions raise difficult questions. How can scientists participate in urgent societal debates while maintaining scientific credibility? What responsibilities do researchers have beyond producing knowledge? And who gets to participate in determining what knowledge is needed?
The study also identifies another path. Rather than viewing the relationship between science and politics only through the question of whether scientists should advocate or remain at a distance, the authors point towards greater participation in knowledge production. Creating opportunities for different societal actors to contribute their perspectives could offer a way to move beyond this tension.
De Proeverij: putting dialogue into practice
That idea is also being explored beyond the publication.
On 28 September, De Proeverij (“The Tasting”) brought together climate scientists, science communicators, policymakers and science funders at The Green House in Utrecht. The event provided an opportunity to reflect collectively on the research findings and explore what different forms of societal engagement could look like in practice.
Importantly, De Proeverij also served as a preview of the citizen assemblies being developed as a dialogical approach to science communication.
Rather than communicating scientific findings in one direction, this approach creates space for citizens and experts to deliberate together: sharing experiences, identifying questions and considering what kinds of knowledge and research are needed to respond to the climate crisis.
The next phase builds on this through Science in/and Crisis. Together with G1000, the researchers are organising citizen assemblies in Roermond, Wormer, Assen and Zutphen. Citizens will first deliberate on their experiences of the climate crisis and the questions they consider important. They will then meet with experts to build on these perspectives and jointly contribute to a research agenda.
In this way, the trajectory from Caught in the Fray to De Proeverij and the citizen assemblies represents more than a series of project outputs. It moves from understanding the challenges climate scientists face when engaging with society to experimenting with ways in which science and society can produce knowledge through dialogue.
For ASI, it also shows how Seed Money can help an initial research collaboration develop further, generating new knowledge, opening up dialogue and creating opportunities for continued experimentation across the boundaries of science and society.