How do the general public experience climate change narratives? In recent studies, MAE and AE-Bergen Knowledge Hub Knowledge Hub steering group member Kjersti Fløttum sees that “the general public is more preoccupied by the tone that characterises climate narratives. They criticize the overwhelming negativity and gloom-and-doom perspectives and request a more positive approach”, our steering group member say. Read the complete interview made by the Academia Europaea Cardiff Hub.

 

About Kjersti Fløttum

Kjersti Fløttum MAE is a Professor Emerita of French Linguistics at the Department of Foreign Languages, University of Bergen. She has had an extensive academic career, serving as Vice-Rector for International Relations from 2005 to 2009 and as a member of the University Board from 2013 to 2021. From 2020 to 2023, she was the Chair of the Board of the Holberg Prize. Professor Fløttum has published extensively in international journals and is (co-)author/editor of several books.

Professor Fløttum’s research interests encompass text and genre theory, narrative structure, semantics, pragmatics, linguistic polyphony, and discourse analysis. Since 2012, she has led the interdisciplinary research group LINGCLIM, which investigates the role of language in climate change discourse. From 2020 to 2023, she led the CLIMLIFE project, which explores motivations for lifestyle changes in the context of climate change, funded by the Research Council of Norway.

In recognition of her efforts in promoting bilateral relations between France and Norway, she was honoured with the French Ordre national du Mérite in 2023.

Read the interview

Your work emphasises the importance of language in shaping climate change discourse. How do you believe narrative structures influence public perception and policymaking on climate change?

“Stories’ are made up of narratives, which have different components, of which complication and reaction are the most important. The influence narratives may have is dependent on the focus given to the complication element (climate change itself and its causes) and/or to the reaction component (possible solutions to curb the consequences of climate change). A narrative in which the reaction component is prominent may have a motivating effect, by providing people with suggestions for measures that could be taken at individual, community or societal levels.Conversely, a complication-focused narrative may induce a sense of despondency and fatalism. In addition, narratives may contain different characters (explicitly or implicitly), such as hero, victim and villain, that may display different distributions of responsibility.”

The LINGCLIM project has explored the role of language in climate discourse since 2012. What are the most significant findings that have emerged from this research?

“We have shown that there is a great variety of climate change narratives, caused by the immensity and complexity of the issue and the interests involved. Climate change refers to a process which manifests itself at scales far beyond those of daily experience, and which can only be understood through knowledge from a broad range of scientific disciplines. If we add to this complexity the fact that climate change is a phenomenon that goes well beyond the geophysical domain, to encompass the social, political, ethical, cultural and communicational, then any discourse on climate change is a simplification.We have also found, through the approach of linguistic polyphony, that climate narratives are particularly multi-voiced, with both explicit and implicit voices. With different voices come different values and interests. It has been particularly interesting to reveal how hidden voices can adopt, refute or concede other narrative voices within the same text.”

How do you ensure communication about climate change is both scientifically accurate and accessible to a general audience?

“As linguistics researchers, we cannot ensure scientific accuracy, but our cross-disciplinary approach of including climate researchers helps to avoid inaccuracy. With regards to accessibility to the general public, we have to enter into a dialogue with different segments of the population. For example, in a study where we included students from upper-secondary school, they told us that they found the relation between global and local changes particularly difficult.However, what we see in our most recent studies is that the general public is more preoccupied by the tone that characterises climate narratives. They criticise the overwhelming negativity and gloom-and-doom perspectives and request a more positive approach, pointing at possible solutions and where they can contribute.”

What do you see as the biggest challenges and opportunities for the next generation of researchers in climate linguistics?

“It will be important to focus on the importance of individual action and individual voices. There is increasing interest in who should act, as well as in what should be done to avoid or mitigate the most serious consequences. Clearly, international and national agents are needed to develop policies and implement changes, but individuals are also expected to contribute, especially through lifestyle change. A challenge will be to change the excuse of , “What I do will not have any effect” into an understanding that, “You matter more than you think”.We have seen a trend, both in psychological studies and public debates, that preferences are oriented towards more positive language, with an objection to negative and alarming language, which may demotivate people from engaging in climate action. This tendency should encourage communicators to strike a balance between alarming and encouraging people, when the aim is to motivate them towards climate action.As the consequences of climate change manifest globally, it’s also important to study its linguistic representations in relation to phenomena such as technological innovation, energy policies, armed conflicts, hunger, migration, as well as the destruction of nature and wildlife habitats.”

 

For the University of Bergen (UiB) and for the Academia Europaea Bergen Hub, the seminar and ERC board meeting in Bergen on 26th-27th June marked both the end of the first half of 2024 and the beginning of summer. It also concluded a very active season for the AE Bergen Hub.

Our Academic Director Eystein Jansen, who is also the Vice-President for Physical Sciences and Engineering at the ERC, played a key role in bringing the ERC Board to our hometown of Bergen at the close of the spring semester.

“Frontier research is key to securing Europe’s role in the world, in terms of providing more innovations in society, solving global challenges and securing democratic processes. It has been said that that the creation of the ERC is the best European innovation of recent times, and I think I subscribe to that view.” Eystein Jansen said in his welcome speech at the meeting.

Science diplomacy during crises

In 2024, Academia Europaea Bergen has focused extensively on mapping the conditions for scientific cooperation and science diplomacy during geopolitical crises, with a special focus on Arctic relations. Our report The Future of Science Diplomacy in the Arctic, published in 2023, has led to the Rethinking Arctic collaboration project, funded by a 400 000 NOK grant from UArctic. The project team includes renowned scientists from Europe, Canada and the USA.

The Rethinking Arctic Collaboration project was presented at the Arctic Circle Berlin Forum, on 8^th May providing an opportunity for team members to meet in person. The project’s aim is to engage with stakeholders and produce a comprehensive report. Outreach is important, and our proposal for an event at the 2024 Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavík, Iceland, from 17th-19th October, was recently accepted amidst strong competition.

Academia Europaea Bergen is committed to expanding our work in Science Diplomacy and Arctic Relations. We have submitted a pre-application for a grant from Nordforsk to fund a 3-4 year project titled Arctic knowledge and knowledge systems in flux – threats and coping strategies for a sustainable Arctic. If awarded, this project will be a truly Nordic effort, with partners from Norway, Finland and Sweden, as well as Trans-Atlantic connections including experts from Canada and the US.

In addition to these major projects, spring 2024 saw Academia Europaea Bergen continue to co-organise a well-established meeting series (mainly held in Norwegian) together with the Bergen offices of the Norwegian Academy of Technological Sciences (NTVA Bergen) and The Norwegian Society of Graduate Technical and Scientific Professionals (Tekna Bergen). Other collaborations included the Horizon Lectures series at UiB and the Arctic Frontiers Conference.

With this summary of our activities at Academia Europaea Bergen, we wish all Members, collaborators and friends a nice summer!

 

Working group members, as well as external keynotes and commentators, offered new perspectives to the “Rethinking Arctic Collaboration”-project from Academia Europaea Bergen, when the project was presented at a session at Arctic Circle Berlin, May 8^th. The panel discussion also added new context.

The first keynote of the session was from Melody Brown Burkins, Director of the Institute of Arctic Studies at the John Sloan Dickey Center, Dartmouth.

– What you’ll hear today during our session is that, even in our group, we are not all defining science diplomacy and cooperation challenges in the same way, but we all want to see a future with shared Arctic science diplomacy goals. We want to see if we can learn what paths to future Arctic science cooperation will work. And we want to see Arctic science done with just, ethical, and inclusive Arctic governance, Melody Brown Burkins said in her introduction.

She highlighted that an ethical and equitable future for Arctic science diplomacy would have to include Arctic Indigenous Peoples in both knowledge creation and diplomatic decision-making.

Two objectives

She described the foremost challenges of future models of Arctic science diplomacy to be ensuring primarily two objectives:

– The practice of science consistently, ethically, and equitably includes the engagement of diverse knowledge systems – most specifically Arctic Indigenous Knowledge systems – to inform Arctic policy, and:

– The practice of diplomacy consistently, ethically, and equitably supporting governance models where leaders of recognized Arctic Indigenous Peoples organizations wield decision-making power alongside leaders of Arctic Nations.

– This is a goal for Arctic science diplomacy we can address now, regardless of full Arctic Council cooperation, Melody Brown Burkins said.

On the situation resulting from missing Russians climate data following the current sanctions, she said:

– I do not think more climate data is the sole answer to the existential threat we are facing of a warming earth, eroding coastlines, permafrost thaw, sea level rise, the loss of sea ice, and the rise of powerful storms across the globe. Because we know what the science is telling us. We have known what the science has been telling us since the 1950s. We need to move to low-carbon, net zero economies as soon as humanly possible.

The second keynote of the session was Frode Nilssen, professor at Nord University Business School and research professor at Fridtjof Nansens Institute.

– The current change in the geopolitical situation affecting Arctic collaboration have been taking place gradually over the last two decades. This is not a new situation, even as it has been amplified by the terrible, Russian aggression in Ukraine, thus creating an entirely new situation, particularly in the European Arctic, Nilssen emphasized.

Nilssen drew a parallel between science diplomacy and another, continuing collaboration between Norway and Russia, namely the joint fisheries commission, deciding on the annual quotas of the fish stock.

– This collaboration rests on scientific advice drawn from solid research over time and has also been able to continue during the current sanction regime, Nilssen said.   

Identify both mechanism and motivation

The final keynote was Rolf Rødven, Executive Secretary of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, AMAP.

– In the internal talks at AMAP, the discussions about continued scientific collaboration with Russia boiled down to defining scientific integrity as our most important asset. Whatever we wanted to do, we needed to make sure that our scientific integrity was maintained. For instance, we would resist any pressure to exclude Russian co-authors from scientific papers, as that would constitute scientific misconduct, Rødven said.

– If we would like to resume a full pan-Arctic cooperation including Russia, and the need to understand the impacts of rapidly warming Arctic is the reason for doing so, we would need to identify both the mechanism and the motivation. The legally binding Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation provides such a mechanism, and to join efforts towards the International Polar Year in 2032 in meeting the most important challenge for our Arctic future may be such a motivation, Rødven added.

In her introductory comments to the panel, Clara Ganslandt, Special Envoy for Arctic Matters, European External Action Service, said:

– This session has been enlightening on the complexities of the current geopolitical situation, when also intersecting with the global threat of climate change.

Academic director of Academia Europaea Bergen, Eystein Jansen, also had introductory comments to the panel:

– It is easy to become pessimistic about the role of science diplomacy today and whether the concept has any meaning at all. Taking part in conversations here at Arctic Circle Berlin, I’m convinced that there still is a role for science diplomacy. Continuing to do scientific research the way it should be done, will create a space for science diplomacy, Jansen said.

Additional avenues

– Also important to consider, is that there are more avenues for science diplomacy than just collaboration with Russia. Organizations like IPY, IPPC, AMAP or the UN system still operates and some of these may be able to provide avenues for cooperation with Russia further down the line.

In the following panel discussion, Clara Ganslandt pointed out several organisations where science diplomacy is still happening and functioning:

– In my view, projects like the All-Atlantic Ocean Research and Innovation Alliance, the EU Polar Cluster, The Sustainable Blue Economy Partnership and also the G7 Future of the Seas and Oceans Initiative are examples of science diplomacy that is ongoing and working, Ganslandt said as part of the panel discussion during the session.

More on the “Rethinking Arctic Collaboration”-project from Academia Europaea Bergen.