Communicating Climate Change Efficacy Through Narrative
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
How to Save a Planet: Communicating Climate Change Efficacy Through Narrative A Senior Project Presented to The Faculty of the Communication Studies Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Arts By Amanda K. Smith Spring 2021 Dr. Lauren R. Kolodziejski Senior Project Advisor Dr. Grace Yeh Department Interim Chair © 2021 Amanda K. Smith HOW TO SAVE A PLANET 2 Abstract The podcast How to Save a Planet represents an emerging form of climate change communication that can be further explored through rhetorical analysis. For people who are interested in climate change but want less doom-and-gloom messaging and more applicable ways to address it, How to Save a Planet presents the unique opportunity to listen in on the discussions of science communicators and climate experts as they detangle the complexity that is climate change. By utilizing the podcast form, hosts Alex Blumberg and Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson can reach a large audience of listeners to bridge the gap between the scientists who work on climate issues and the public audience who care about resolving them. In the pentadic analysis of the podcast, its purpose, agents, and agency will be focused on, as these are the narrative elements that reflect the hosts’ rhetorical intent. After the analysis, an evaluation of the artifact determines that the implementation of these elements in How to Save a Planet bridges a connection between science experts and public audiences, as well as provide efficacy for listeners to act on climate change. HOW TO SAVE A PLANET 3 How to Save a Planet: Communicating Climate Change Efficacy Through Narrative “So, we focus a lot on this show on big-picture solutions,” Alex begins. You and Ayana nod your heads. “Things like government policies to limit climate-harming refrigerants, or things that we can do to increase renewable power or change how we farm.” “But we know - because you tell us - that a lot of you are wondering, what should I be doing as an individual in my daily life? And do those individual actions even matter?” You consider this a moment before Alex interjects. “One listener even told us about a spreadsheet he made tallying up all his family’s actions.” “I love a spreadsheet!” Ayana gushes. You chuckle along with them. Just as Alex starts to talk about carbon footprints, you check the road before crossing it to continue your walk. You pause the podcast to adjust your face mask and rewind it a couple seconds to make sure you catch what he said. After all, you don’t want to miss anything important. Podcasts offer a way for people to virtually eavesdrop on interesting conversations and stories they may otherwise never have access to. For people who are interested in climate change but want less doom-and-gloom messaging and more applicable ways to address it, the podcast How to Save a Planet presents the unique opportunity to listen in on the discussions of science communicators and climate experts as they detangle the complexity that is climate change. Personable hosts like journalist Alex Blumberg and scientist Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson share insights on a myriad of climate-related issues along with an ever-changing cast of relevant guests. For a podcast that emerged on the saturated media landscape in 2020, How to Save a HOW TO SAVE A PLANET 4 Planet holds its own against other science podcasts by providing listeners an opportunity to engage in climate change communication through a narrative-driven format. The podcast How to Save a Planet represents an emerging form of climate change communication that can be further explored through rhetorical analysis. In order to grasp the context of the rhetorical analysis of How to Save a Planet, a review of relevant literature will be provided, with an emphasis on climate change communication and the opportunities that podcasts provide in science communication contexts. Burkean methods will be described and employed in the analysis of How to Save a Planet’s, specifically the dramatistic pentad elements of purpose, agent, and agency. An evaluation of the artifact will determine that the implementation of these element in the podcast to bridge a connection between science experts and public audiences, as well as provide efficacy for listeners to act on climate change. Literature Review & Methods The field of climate change communication has been cultivated for decades to understand the discourse of this wicked problem. According to “Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions,” climate change communication began forming into a subset of environmental and risk communication in the mid-1980s (Moser, 2009). Climate change communication rhetoric is of special concern to scholars and practitioners, as public acceptance and advocacy is integral to major climate policy action. For instance, a 2015 study published in Environmental Politics utilized “bridging” rhetoric to facilitate a climate change policy discussion with a “small deliberative group that contained climate-change deniers,” (Dryzek & Yo, 2015). In this case, rhetoric was used to promote public reasoning related to climate policy. Despite the different individual perceptions that participants had of climate change, a common ground was met on the acceptance of greenhouse-gas mitigation measures HOW TO SAVE A PLANET 5 (Dryzek & Yo, 2015). As this study illustrates, rhetoric can bring together stakeholders on key issues that are necessary to address climate change. In terms of rhetoric, a key dynamic to consider in climate change communication is saliency versus efficacy of messaging. In the context of climate change communication, saliency can be defined as the significance of the issue, while efficacy is the ability to effectively act on the issue. Rhetors develop saliency in messaging by emphasizing the severity or importance of an issue using various appeals. A rhetorical strategy to heighten the saliency of climate change issues, particularly in media settings, is the fear-based appeal. There is debate as to whether fear appeals are truly effective for promoting engagement with the issue of climate change. Reser and Bradley (2017) discuss this debate and the vast amount of research related to it in their 2017 Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science article: “...the use of such fear appeals in climate change communication and engagement has not been demonstrated, to date, to be particularly effective,” (p. 21). Too much fear-invoking saliency in the context of a global threat like climate change runs the risk of overwhelming audiences and potentially producing apathy. The primary reason why fear appeals fail to be effective with engaging audiences in climate change issues is the “...disconnect between... self-efficacy and ideally outcome efficacy,” (Reser & Bradley, 2017, p. 22). For this reason, efficacy has become a research topic within the climate communication field to promote public engagement with climate issues. In a Risk Analysis article, researchers Bostrom, Hayes, and Crosman (2018) test a theory-based measurement approach of climate change mitigation efficacy. Efficacy can be specified in terms of certain facets of climate action, with common types being self-efficacy (reducing risks of climate change is possible) and response efficacy (climate change mitigation efforts are effective) (Bostrom, Hayes, & Crosman, 2018 pp. 805). Several other efficacy types emerged in this study for HOW TO SAVE A PLANET 6 personal, government, and collective efficacy; these were found to be associated with more support for climate change risk mitigation (Bostrom, Hayes, & Crosman, 2018 pp. 805). Integrating efficacy into climate change messaging will be especially relevant to discussing how podcasts engage audiences in climate action. Podcasting has gained some recognition within the field of communication studies as a viable way to communicate with public audiences. In 2010, New Media & Society published the article “Podologues: Conversations created by science podcasts,” with “podologues'' being a term for discussions prompted by podcasts. The study included a content analysis of online discussion forums and blogs associated with five popular science podcasts, then conducted interviews with listeners (Birch and Weitkamp, 2010, p. 889). Results of this study indicated that podcasts were perceived as “valuable sources of scientific information and that blogs and forums can act as public spaces for audience members to share knowledge, develop their own ideas about science and provide feedback to media producers,” (Birch and Weitkamp, 2010, p. 889). Presenting an opportunity for interpersonal discussions through podcasts and associated forums is a research area which can be further explored in climate communication. A 2017 Journal of Environmental Psychology found that university students and nationally representative samples of aquarium visitors were more likely to engage in climate change discussions and demonstrate higher efficacy beliefs after receiving knowledge-based interventions (Geiger, Swim, & Fraser, 2017). If climate communication podcasts can incorporate this knowledge intervention, then there is potential to promote more regular discussion of climate change and mitigation efforts with enhanced efficacy. In conjunction with virtually mediated interpersonal discussions, podcasts can prompt more engagement between the scientific community and public audiences. A decade after Birch and Weitkamp’s