Knowledge into action

Rhetorical strategies for using science in climate activism

Authors

• Irina Herneaho University of Helsinki https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2246-1989
• Emmi Lahti University of Helsinki https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6553-6696

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61197/fjl.156249

Keywords:

rhetorical strategies, genre, discourse analysis, climate change communication, climate activism

Abstract

This article examines how climate activists utilise scientific knowledge, particularly IPCC reports, in their efforts to bridge the gap between climate science and policy. The dataset consists of 119 texts from 2018–2023, produced by four Finnish environmental NGOs or campaigns: Coal-free Finland, Extinction Rebellion Finland, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and Greenpeace Finland. Drawing on discourse analysis and genre studies, a total of six rhetorical strategies for using science have been identified. The findings highlight how IPCC reports are flexibly adapted to different activist agendas and genres, expanding understandings of genre interactions in grassroots activism. Further research is needed to explore how activist genres influence broader public and institutional discourses.

References

Auken, Sune. 2020. Introduction: Genre in the climate debate. In Auken, Sune & Sunesen, Christel (eds.), Genre in the climate debate, 1–16. Warsaw: De Gruyter.

Auken, Sune & Sunesen, Christel. (eds.) 2020. Genre in the climate debate. Warsaw: De Gruyter.

Barkemeyer, Ralf & Dessai, Suraje & Monge-Sanz, Beatriz & Renzi, Barbara Gabrielle & Napolitano, Giulio. 2015. Linguistic analysis of IPCC summaries for policymakers and associated coverage. Nature Climate Change 6. 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2824

Bazerman, Charles. 2020. Scientific knowledge, public knowledge, and public policy: How genres form and disrupt knowledge for acting about anthropogenic climate change. In Auken, Sune & Sunesen, Christel (eds.), Genre in the climate debate, 34–50. Warsaw: De Gruyter.

Bazerman, Charles & Kuntzman, Josh. 2020. How the US congress knows and evades knowing about anthropogenic climate change: The record created in committee hearings. In Auken, Sune & Sunesen, Christel (eds.), Genre in the climate debate, 51–84. Warsaw: De Gruyter.

Bhatia, Vijay K. 2016. Critical genre analysis: Investigating interdiscursive performance in professional practice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Bray, Nancy. 2019. How do online news genres take up knowledge claims from a scientific research article on climate change? Written Communication 36(1). 155–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318804822

Brysse, Keynyn & Oreskes, Naomi & O’Reilly, Jessica & Oppenheimer, Michael. 2013. Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change 23(1). 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008

Coal-free Finland = Hiilivapaa Suomi. 2022. Kiitos 2018–2022! Hiilivapaa Suomen Fortum-kampanjan huippuhetkiä. In Hiilivapaa Suomi blog. (https://hiilivapaasuomi.fi/2022/11/11/kiitos-2018-2022-hiilivapaa-suomen-fortum-kampanjan-huippuhetkia/) (Accessed 2024-04-17).

CRED = Center for Research on Environmental Decisions. 2009. The psychology of climate change communication: A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public. New York: Columbia University.

Devitt, Amy. 2020. Genre for social action: Transforming worlds through genre awareness and action. In Auken, Sune & Sunesen, Christel (eds.), Genre in the climate debate, 17–33. Warsaw: De Gruyter.

van Dijk, Teun A. 2024. Social movement discourse. An introduction. New York: Routledge.

Evensen, Darrick. 2019. The rhetorical limitations of the #FridaysForFuture movement. Nature Climate Change 9(6). 428–433. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0481-1

Extinction Rebellion = Elokapina. n.d. About us. (https://elokapina.fi/en/about-us/) (Accessed 2024-04-17).

FANC = Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto. n.d. The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. (https://www.sll.fi/en/) (Accessed 2024-04-17).

Fløttum, Kjersti. 2013. Narratives in reports about climate change. In Gotti, Maurizio & Guinda, Carmen (eds.), Narratives in Academic and Professional Genres, 277–292. Bern: Peter Lang.

Fløttum, Kjersti & Dahl, Trine. 2014. IPCC communicative practices: A linguistic comparison of the Summary for Policymakers 2007 and 2013. The LSP Journal – Language for Special Purposes, Professional Communication, Knowledge Management and Cognition 5(2). 66–83.

Fløttum, Kjersti & Gasper, Des & St. Clair, Asuncion Lera. 2016. Synthesizing a policy-relevant perspective from the three IPCC “Worlds” – A comparison of topics and frames in the SPMs of the Fifth Assessment Report. Global Environmental Change 38. 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.007

Freadman, Anne. 2002. Uptake. In Coe, Richard M. & Lingard, Lorelei & Teslenko, Tatiana (eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change, 39–53. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Greenpeace. n.d. Find a Greenpeace organisation. (https://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/worldwide/) (Accessed 2024-04-17).

Hestres, Luis E. 2018. Take action now: Motivational framing and action requests in climate advocacy. Environmental Communication 12(4). 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1424010

IPCC. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.

IPCC. 2023. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.

IPCC. n.d. About the IPCC. (https://www.ipcc.ch/about/) (Accessed 2024-04-23).

Kanerva, Julia & Krizsán, Attila. 2021. Discouraging climate action through implicit argumentation: An analysis of linguistic polyphony in the Summary for Policymakers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Discourse & Communication 15(6). 609–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211026512

Kleres, Jochen & Wettergren, Åsa. 2017. Fear, hope, anger, and guilt in climate activism. Social movement studies 16(5). 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2017.1344546

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Markowitz, Ezra M. & Guckian, Meaghan L. 2018. Climate change communication: Challenges, insights, and opportunities. In Clayton, Susan & Manning, Christei (eds.), Psychology and climate change, 35–63. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Marlon, Jennifer R. & Bloodhart, Brittany & Ballew, Matthew T. & Rolfe-Redding, Justin & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony & Maibach, Edward. 2019. How hope and doubt affect climate change mobilization. Frontiers in Communication 4(20). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00020

Mehlenbacher, Ashley Rose & Mehlenbacher, Brad. 2020. Rogue rhetorical actors: scientists and the social action of tweeting. In Auken, Sune & Sunesen, Christel (eds.), Genre in the climate debate, 179–193. Warsaw: De Gruyter.

Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70(2). 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686

Moser, Susanne C. 2010. Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1(1). 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.11

Moser, Susanne C. & Dilling, Lisa. 2011. Communicating climate change: Closing the science‐action gap. In Dryzek, John S. & Norgaard, Richard B. & Schlosberg, David (eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society, 161–174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ojala, Maria. 2007. Confronting macrosocial worries: Worry about environmental problems and proactive coping among a group of young volunteers. Futures 39(6). 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.11.007

Ojala, Maria 2023. Hope and climate-change engagement from a psychological perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology 49. 101514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101514

Penz, Hermine. 2018. ‘Global warming’ or ‘climate change’? In Fill, Alwin F. & Penz, Hermione (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics, 277–292. New York: Routledge.

Pepermans, Yves & Maeseele, Pieter. 2014. Democratic debate and mediated discourses on climate change: From consensus to de/politicization. Environmental Communication 8(2). 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.906482

Reiff, Mary Jo & Bawarshi, Anis S. 2016. Introduction. From genre turn to public turn: Navigating the intersections of public sphere theory, genre theory, and the performances of publics. In Reiff, Mary Jo & Bawarshi, Anis S. (eds.), Genre and the performance of publics, 3–22. Louisville: University Press of Colorado.

Reiff, Mary Jo & Bawarshi, Anis S. 2020. “How to turn accumulated knowledge into action”: uptake, public petitions, and the climate change debate. In Auken, Sune & Sunesen, Christel (eds.), Genre in the climate debate, 150–178. Warsaw: De Gruyter.

Searle, John. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smart, Graham. 2013. The discursive production and impairment of public trust through rhetorical representations of science: The case of global climate change. In Candlin, Christopher N. & Crichton, Jonathan (eds.), Discourses of trust, 252–266. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Smart, Graham & Falconer, Matthew. 2020. Genre, uptake, and the recontextualization of climate change science by ‘denialist’ cultural communities. In Auken, Sune & Sunesen, Christel (eds.), Genre in the climate debate, 85–107. Warsaw: De Gruyter.

Solin, Anna. 2004. Intertextuality as mediation. On the analysis of intertextual relations in public discourse. Text 24. 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2004.010

Spinuzzi, Clay. 2004. Describing assemblages: Genre sets, systems, repertoires, and ecologies. Computer Writing and Research Lab. 1–9.

Spinuzzi, Clay & Zachry, Mark. 2000. Genre ecologies: An open-system approach to understanding and constructing documentation. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation 24(3). 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1145/344599.344646

Tachino, Tosh. 2012. Theorizing uptake and knowledge mobilization: A case for intermediary genre. Written Communication 29(4). 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312457908

Thompson, Geoff & Thetela, Puleng. 1995. The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text 15(1). 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103

Zulianello, Mattia & Ceccobelli, Diego. 2020. Don’t call it climate populism: On Greta Thunberg’s technocratic ecocentrism. The Political Quarterly 91(3). 623–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12858