Mary presents to the emergency room accompanied by her husband and adult son. She has advanced cancer for which she is receiving palliative treatment meant to alleviate her discomfort. Her cancer is incurable, and Mary is deteriorating rapidly. She is weak, barely eating, and sleeping almost constantly. Her medications have been escalated to control her pain and Mary is now comfortable, but increasingly sedated. Her family is scared and angry, they feel they are losing her and that her care has been mismanaged. In the examination room, along with Mary and her family, stands a nurse and a physician at her bedside. Five people each with a different set of perspectives and priorities.
Mary rests comfortably, her breathing increasingly laboured and worry for her family visible on her face. She has accepted the inevitable outcome of her illness and is grateful for pain relief. Concern over leaving her family behind heavies her heart. Her husband grasps her hands tightly, not ready to let them go. Her son’s gaze analytically shifts back and forth between his parent’s faces and the medical team searching for solutions. The nurse is busy assessing Mary, getting vital signs, and updating the chart. The doctor is reviewing her medical history, devising the need for investigations or interventions. Each of the five people offer a different knowledge base, values, and desired outcome from the same situation. The facts do not change – the medical findings are constant despite who is looking at them. Yet the definition of the problem varies greatly through each set of eyes. Care at home versus hospital admission, comfortable overmedication versus lucidity, prolonging life versus accepting rest, further testing versus embracing the unknown. Every person in the room is affected, albeit differently. Every person represents a different audience with a different set of values that needs to be understood before communicating overwhelming information. Every person has different expertise and, together, they must collectively define the problem and determine an appropriate solution. To approach this situation by presenting data to Mary and her family without first understanding their values would make it nearly impossible to define the actual problem, never mind find the solution.
This fictional analogy illustrates my understanding of effective climate communication by drawing upon experiences which have shaped my own worldview. In many ways, healthcare would be much simpler if we limited our consideration to the facts of pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of a disease. Similarly, if facts were all that were necessary to halt climate change, I have no doubt we would surpass our goals. Unsurprisingly, climate communication is far more complex than that.
In CALS502 I came to recognize themes in the literature that are essential for effective communication, with one concept standing out as the imperative first consideration: knowing your audience. Once the target audience is understood, communication techniques can be used to effectively reach them. Understanding the audience is necessary because a person’s values act as the gateway to how they understand and care about the message (Moser, 2016). As Moser (2016) states, “we all hear, perceive, make sense of, and judge incoming information […] through the filters of culturally transmitted values” (p. 350). The message then must be carefully constructed to engage the audience utilizing techniques, including: building hope; providing tangible solutions; and using alternative forms of communication, particularly narratives. As Ojala (2015) found, “constructive hope was positively associated with engagement” (p.133), which aligns with other literature in asserting that climate communication based in realistic hope assists in the prevention of a sense of futility (Bennett, 2021; Howarth, 2020). The provision of practical solutions is essential to maintain engagement, increase motivation and provide direction (Bennet, 2021; Howarth, 2020; Moser, 2016). Narratives are particularly useful to present complex issues in an emotionally resonant way while making information easier to comprehend (Howarth, 2020). Climate knowledge must be purposefully communicated in a way which centres around the target audiences’ values and worldviews to reach them in a meaningful way to foster active and sustainable engagement.
Just as with Mary and her family, effective leadership does not equate to knowing all the answers or evidence. It requires awareness that communication of facts alone is not enough. The message must be tailored to multiple audiences to align with their worldview in a way that is meaningful to them. Doing this will likely require input from a variety of voices, such as artists, storytellers, scientists, politicians, activists, healthcare workers, engineers, parents, children, and teachers. The list goes on. In addition to making communication more effective, a transdisciplinary approach supports an environment of sharing knowledge between disciplines to address the complexity of the climate crisis. The integration of knowledge is necessary to find solutions otherwise unattainable when groups are kept in isolation (Serrao-Neumann et al., 2021). The climate crisis is not only complex from a scientific standpoint, it is weaved into already complex social, cultural, and political structures. As with any good leader, a climate leader must understand these influences and find way to connect with those on a spectrum of values.
I pose this question to you as the reader: what would be the best way to convey messages to you? To those closest to you? What would be most likely to motivate you to action?
References
Bennet, A., Hatch, C., & Pike, C. (2021). Climate messaging that works. Climate Narratives Initiative.https://climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Climate%20Messaging%20that%20Works%20%20Talking%20Energy%20Transition%20and%20Climate%20Change%20in%20Canada.pdf
Howarth, C., Parsons, L., & Thew, H. (2020). Effectively communicating climate science beyond academia: Harnessing the heterogeneity of climate knowledge. One Earth, 2(4), 320-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.04.001
Moser, S. C. (2016). Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say? WIREs Climate Change, (May/June), 345-369. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.403
Ojala, M. (2015). Hope in the face of climate change: Associations with environmental engagement and student perceptions of teachers’ emotion communication style and future orientation. Journal of Environmental Education, 46(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1021662
Serrao-Neumann, S., Moreira, F. de A., Dalla Fontana, M., Torres, R. R., Lapola, D. M., Nunes, L. H., Marengo, J. A., & Di Giulio, G. M. (2021). Advancing transdisciplinary adaptation research practice. Nature Climate Change, 11(12), 1006–1008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01221-4