Spoel, Philippa, David Goforth, Hoi Cheu, and David Pearson. 2009. “Public Communication of Climate Change Science: Engaging Citizens Through Apocalyptic Narrative Explanation.” Technical Communication Quarterly, 18 (1): 49-81.
Philippa Spoel, David Goforth, Hoi Cheu, and David Pearson tackle the “apocalyptic narrative of climate change” as an attention-grabbing tool to spur conversations about climate issues. The apocalyptic narrative idea, they explain, comes from the work of M.J. Killingsworth and J.S. Palmer, whose research identifies the prevalence of apocalyptic narratives in the environmental movement, and Stephen Norris, who has written about the important roles narratives can play in science education. To illustrate the concept, the writers look at two public communication projects that represent two genres of climate change rhetoric. The first, An Inconvenient Truth (AIT), uses documentary filmmaking to feature Al Gore, the former vice president of the United States, lecturing on climate change. Next, the Climate Change Show (CCS) was an internationally distributed multimedia theater project produced by Project North, a science center in northern Ontario.
Interestingly, both public communication projects convey climate change information within the looser construct of cultural thought processes rather than a strict technical thought process, bridging personal virtues into a broader science policy conversation. Ideally, such efforts can lead public audiences to better understand climate change issues and become more engaged in meaningful conversations on the topic. Unfortunately, developing public expertise on science topics presents rhetorical challenges. The subject matter must be conditioned to adapt to multiple narratives and audiences (51-52).
In an effort to better understand how rhetoric can be used to create engaging forms of public understanding, Spoel, Goforth, Cheu, and Pearson provide a brief analysis that explores the role of “apocalyptic narrative explanation in AIT’s and CCS’s communication of climate change science” in the wake of the United Nations’ Kyoto Accord of 1997—a multinational policy agreement to address climate change. The United States would not participate in the Kyoto Accord based on the grounds that emerging economies weren’t required to adhere to its guidelines, and due to concerns that the U.S. economy might be harmed in the process. By evaluating the narrative strategies of AIT and CCS, the writers examine the logical structuring of claims of evidence, emotional appeals used in each episode, and the overarching questions regarding the development of public scientific knowledge and engagement as a catalyst for meaningful public discourse and policy-making. However, the viewing experience does not itself provide the audience with enough of a foundation to directly or immediately engage in intelligent scientific conversations (53-54, 75).
The writers’ found that the framework of apocalyptic narrative served as an important rhetorical tool for explaining climate change within cultural thought processes that co-opted a technical thought process, among others. Also, when conveying complex scientific information to a lay audience, there are going to be gaps in understanding that require a bridge. That bridge is the audience’s faith in the scientist or surrogate as narrator. In other words, the logos of the scientific narrative must be combined with a trustworthy ethos to build understanding. Technical details, then, need to be folded into a framework of cultural rationality that fosters social awareness and concern (74-75, 77).
The important takeaway from this article is that using apocalyptic framing can bring a sense of tremendous importance and urgency to an audience of any topic, provided that the narrator is skillful at storytelling. Also, taking complex scientific concepts and placing them within easy-to-understand parables can help audiences better understand the material. However, while such framing draws connections to their everyday lives, it does not necessarily mean that they will be able to participate in highly intellectual discussions on these science topics.
Philippa Spoel, David Goforth, Hoi Cheu, and David Pearson tackle the “apocalyptic narrative of climate change” as an attention-grabbing tool to spur conversations about climate issues. The apocalyptic narrative idea, they explain, comes from the work of M.J. Killingsworth and J.S. Palmer, whose research identifies the prevalence of apocalyptic narratives in the environmental movement, and Stephen Norris, who has written about the important roles narratives can play in science education. To illustrate the concept, the writers look at two public communication projects that represent two genres of climate change rhetoric. The first, An Inconvenient Truth (AIT), uses documentary filmmaking to feature Al Gore, the former vice president of the United States, lecturing on climate change. Next, the Climate Change Show (CCS) was an internationally distributed multimedia theater project produced by Project North, a science center in northern Ontario.
Interestingly, both public communication projects convey climate change information within the looser construct of cultural thought processes rather than a strict technical thought process, bridging personal virtues into a broader science policy conversation. Ideally, such efforts can lead public audiences to better understand climate change issues and become more engaged in meaningful conversations on the topic. Unfortunately, developing public expertise on science topics presents rhetorical challenges. The subject matter must be conditioned to adapt to multiple narratives and audiences (51-52).
In an effort to better understand how rhetoric can be used to create engaging forms of public understanding, Spoel, Goforth, Cheu, and Pearson provide a brief analysis that explores the role of “apocalyptic narrative explanation in AIT’s and CCS’s communication of climate change science” in the wake of the United Nations’ Kyoto Accord of 1997—a multinational policy agreement to address climate change. The United States would not participate in the Kyoto Accord based on the grounds that emerging economies weren’t required to adhere to its guidelines, and due to concerns that the U.S. economy might be harmed in the process. By evaluating the narrative strategies of AIT and CCS, the writers examine the logical structuring of claims of evidence, emotional appeals used in each episode, and the overarching questions regarding the development of public scientific knowledge and engagement as a catalyst for meaningful public discourse and policy-making. However, the viewing experience does not itself provide the audience with enough of a foundation to directly or immediately engage in intelligent scientific conversations (53-54, 75).
The writers’ found that the framework of apocalyptic narrative served as an important rhetorical tool for explaining climate change within cultural thought processes that co-opted a technical thought process, among others. Also, when conveying complex scientific information to a lay audience, there are going to be gaps in understanding that require a bridge. That bridge is the audience’s faith in the scientist or surrogate as narrator. In other words, the logos of the scientific narrative must be combined with a trustworthy ethos to build understanding. Technical details, then, need to be folded into a framework of cultural rationality that fosters social awareness and concern (74-75, 77).
The important takeaway from this article is that using apocalyptic framing can bring a sense of tremendous importance and urgency to an audience of any topic, provided that the narrator is skillful at storytelling. Also, taking complex scientific concepts and placing them within easy-to-understand parables can help audiences better understand the material. However, while such framing draws connections to their everyday lives, it does not necessarily mean that they will be able to participate in highly intellectual discussions on these science topics.
No comments:
Post a Comment