Climate change research and credibility: balancing tensions across professional, personal, and public domains

Abstract

For research to positively impact society, it must be scientifically credible. The researcher plays a key role in establishing and maintaining credibility, particularly in the climate change field. This paper provides a structure for relating the credibility of researchers themselves to that of research outputs, analysing 'researcher credibility' with reference to three overlapping domains: personal, professional, and public. The researcher's role in each domain is considered in a reflexive way, examining the research process and the researcher's actions. Varied definitions of researcher credibility and possible means to achieve it in each domain are discussed, drawing on relevant cross-disciplinary literature. We argue that, in certain contexts, the actions of researchers can have a direct impact on the credibility of their research. There is scope for broadening researcher credibility to include more public-oriented behaviours. This, however, may be contentious and problematic: there are potential conflicts between public action and professional credibility, with the latter usually taking precedence. By contrast, though personal action (or inaction) rarely affects professional credibility, researchers' personal behaviours may influence public perceptions of research credibility and the importance of addressing climate change.

Communicating climate change in a “post-factual” society: lessons learned from the Pole to Paris campaign

“…This provided a unique opportunity to interact with members of society not usually reached by the scientific discourse. In line with O'Neill and Nicholson-Cole (2009) and Stoknes (2015), we highlighted the opportunities and inspiration of acting on climate change now rather than later. For example, from an economical viewpoint, strong, early climate action considerably outweighs its costs (Stern, 2007).…”

“…Consequently, we worked hard to keep our credibility as researchers (Nordhagen et al, 2014), not partnering with organizations or initiatives on either of the climate advocacy fringes and not favouring one political party over another. Based on the feedback received, this scientific background and endeavour to remain objective allowed us to partner with organizations otherwise out of reach, like the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Meteorological Organization.…”

“…Following the definitions by Nordhagen et al 2014, we experienced a boost in personal and public credibility, more than outweighing a loss in professional credibility from our publication record hiatus while on the road and thus enhancing our researcher credibility overall. By being open about the role we played in public, we strove to negotiate the tension between our professional and public credibilities discussed by Nordhagen et al (2014), in which our goal of stronger climate action on a governmental level was challenged to some degree by the common academic view that researchers should remain detached from public policy. However, as Kotcher et al (2017) point out, this notion is not supported by empirical evidence.…”

How Experienced SoTL Researchers Develop the Credibility of Their Work

“…While there is research about researcher performativity and recognition, which Curtis (2008) warns risks subordinating research excellence, little has directly focused on how researchers conceive of While credibility is a relative notion (Nordhagen et al, 2014), it became clear in this study that all participants perceived credibility as aligned with the value that their SoTL research offers to the learning community. The findings highlight that credibility for SoTL researchers may well differ from institutional and external indicators of credibility (McKinney, 2006;Walker, Baepler, & Cohen, 2008).…”

“…Hutchings & Shulman, 1999;Weimer, 2008). Existing literature highlights the notion that credibility is an elusive factor since it cannot be universally defined (Nordhagen, Calverley, Foulds, O'Keefe, & Wang, 2014) and can be viewed from a number of perspectives that are influenced by attitudinal beliefs and structural factors (McKinney, 2006). How one defines credibility therefore depends on perceptions of self and of one's work in relation to perceived expectations, both personal and structural.…”