After Copenhagen, Revisiting Both the Scientific and Political Framings of the Climate Change Regime

Co‐production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives

“…36 Related to this, political scientists have long looked at how science's view of nature shapes governance regimes, with Dahan and Aykut, for instance, describing the 'scientifico-political' negotiation of the 2 C climate mitigation target in Copenhagen in 2009 and how these negotiations stabilized around that number. 37 Anthropologists have also explored the relationship between nature and culture, with ethnoclimatologists asking to what degree our representations of climate are produced by our direct experience with weather, or by our social organizations and institutions, or co-produced by both. 38 Finally, geographers look at how a sense of place is continuously coconstructed by changes in natural and cultural elements of the landscape, with a changing climate playing an important role.…”

“…14,25,34 Unsurprisingly, many studies using the interactional lens focus on the IPCC and UNFCCC conferences as sites and results of co-production. 24,34,37 They also analyze the interaction between universalized climate knowledge and local contexts of meaning making. Based on the same IPCC knowledge, national governments have pursued different climate policies in line with their own traditions, beliefs, and value systems.…”

“…Descriptively, the interactional lens employs this concept to interpret how abstract boundaries are put up to demarcate science from politics in 'boundary spaces' and how, through 'boundary work,' 107,108 these boundaries are continuously renegotiated for issues like climate change. 24,37,109 This helps us study the coevolution of science and politics and emergence of 'boundary objects,' like the 2 C goal, which are as much a product of science as political debate. 37 Mahony discusses boundary work as a mode of social ordering, delegating certain forms of authority to science or politics.…”

“…24,37,109 This helps us study the coevolution of science and politics and emergence of 'boundary objects,' like the 2 C goal, which are as much a product of science as political debate. 37 Mahony discusses boundary work as a mode of social ordering, delegating certain forms of authority to science or politics. 24 A useful distinction can also be made between boundary work as the deliberate social work of delineation on one hand 107 and as the incidental work that occurs at the science-policy boundary on the other, the daily practices of navigating and working at the boundary.…”

“…It cannot be framed as a purely natural or social phenomenon because the two are inextricably linked. For example, Mayer describes how shifting scientific understandings of climate change, from gradual to nonlinear and rapid, are linked to its shifting social framings as a ‘danger to national security.’ Related to this, political scientists have long looked at how science's view of nature shapes governance regimes, with Dahan and Aykut, for instance, describing the ‘scientifico‐political’ negotiation of the 2°C climate mitigation target in Copenhagen in 2009 and how these negotiations stabilized around that number . Anthropologists have also explored the relationship between nature and culture, with ethnoclimatologists asking to what degree our representations of climate are produced by our direct experience with weather, or by our social organizations and institutions, or co‐produced by both .…”