IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v7y2020i1d10.1057_s41599-020-00582-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Is climate science taking over the science?’: A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere

Author

Listed:
  • Luis Pérez-González

    (University of Manchester)

Abstract

Climate change science has become an increasingly polarized site of controversy, where discussions on epistemological rigour are difficult to separate from debates on the impact that economic and political interests have on the production of evidence and the construction of knowledge. Little research has been conducted so far on the antagonistic discursive processes through which climate knowledge is being contested and traditional forms of expertise are being (de-)legitimized—whether by members of the scientific community or non-scientist actors. This corpus-based study contributes to previous scholarship on the climate science controversy in a number of respects. Unlike earlier studies based on the analysis of mainstream media articles, this paper interrogates a corpus of climate change blog posts published by scientists, journalists, researchers and lobbyists laying claim to core, contributory and interactional forms of expertise—as conceptualized within the third wave of science studies. Further, the corpus informing this study has been designed to reflect the complex and multivoiced nature of the climate knowledge production process. Drawn from five different blogs, the views represented are not confined to the two poles between which the entrenched dialectic of ‘alarmists’ versus ‘deniers’ is typically played out in the climate science debate. Following a systemic functional conceptualization of dialogic engagement as a means of positioning authorial voices vis-à-vis competing perspectives construed and referenced in a text, this paper reports on bloggers’ use of three lexical items (bias, dogma and peer review) to expose their reliance on (non-)epistemic values. Concordances and a range of visualization tools are used to gain systematic insights into the network of lexical choices that obtain around these items, and to gauge whether/how bloggers construct coherent authorial subjectivities in a bid to claim expert status and/or question the recognition of other players in the debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis Pérez-González, 2020. "‘Is climate science taking over the science?’: A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00582-z
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00582-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-00582-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-020-00582-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amelia Sharman, 2015. "The impact of controversy on the production of scientific knowledge," GRI Working Papers 207, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    2. Henry Farrell & Daniel Drezner, 2008. "The power and politics of blogs," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 15-30, January.
    3. Saffron O’Neill & Hywel T. P. Williams & Tim Kurz & Bouke Wiersma & Maxwell Boykoff, 2015. "Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(4), pages 380-385, April.
    4. Sheila Jasanoff, 2003. "(No?) Accounting for expertise," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 157-162, June.
    5. Susanne C. Moser, 2016. "Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 345-369, May.
    6. Kahan, Dan M. & Peters, Ellen & Dawson, Erica Cantrell & Slovic, Paul, 2017. "Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 54-86, May.
    7. Saturnino Luz & Shane Sheehan, 2020. "Methods and visualization tools for the analysis of medical, political and scientific concepts in Genealogies of Knowledge," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-20, December.
    8. Matthew R. Auer & Yuman Zhang & Priscilla Lee, 2014. "The potential of microblogs for the study of public perceptions of climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 291-296, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elise Talgorn & Helle Ullerup, 2023. "Invoking ‘Empathy for the Planet’ through Participatory Ecological Storytelling: From Human-Centered to Planet-Centered Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-31, May.
    2. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    3. Fábio Grigoletto & Fernanda Antunes de Oliveira & Caio Caradi Momesso & Ibrahim Kamel Rodrigues Nehemy & João Emílio de Almeida Junior & Vinícius de Avelar São Pedro & Roberto Greco & Mário Aquino Alv, 2023. "Technological Affordance and the Realities of Citizen Science Projects Developed in Challenging Territories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Heinz Welsch, 2022. "What shapes cognitions of climate change in Europe? Ideology, morality, and the role of educational attainment," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 386-395, June.
    5. Brandts, Jordi & Busom, Isabel & Lopez-Mayan, Cristina & Panadés, Judith, 2022. "Dispelling misconceptions about economics," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    6. Elisabeth Eide & Risto Kunelius, 2021. "Voices of a generation the communicative power of youth activism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-20, November.
    7. 'Alvaro Romaniega, 2021. "On the probability of the Condorcet Jury Theorem or the Miracle of Aggregation," Papers 2108.00733, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    8. Kostas Zafiropoulos & Vasiliki Vrana & Dimitrios Vagianos, 2012. "Bloggers’ Community Characteristics and Influence within Greek Political Blogosphere," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-17, April.
    9. Mary Sanford & James Painter & Taha Yasseri & Jamie Lorimer, 2021. "Controversy around climate change reports: a case study of Twitter responses to the 2019 IPCC report on land," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-25, August.
    10. Sonya Gurwitt & Kari Malkki & Mili Mitra, 2017. "Global issue, developed country bias: the Paris climate conference as covered by daily print news organizations in 13 nations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 281-296, August.
    11. Sheheryar Banuri & Stefan Dercon & Varun Gauri, 2019. "Biased Policy Professionals," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 33(2), pages 310-327.
    12. Leticia Bode & Alexander Hanna & Junghwan Yang & Dhavan V. Shah, 2015. "Candidate Networks, Citizen Clusters, and Political Expression," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 659(1), pages 149-165, May.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:412-422 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:484-504 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Olessia Y. Koltsova & Sergei N. Koltcov & Sergey I. Nikolenko, 2013. "Comment-based discussion communities In the Russian livejournal and their topical coherence," HSE Working papers WP BRP 33/SOC/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    16. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Lila Rabinovich & Kate Weber & Marianna Babboni & Monica Dean & Lance Ignon, 2021. "Public understanding of climate change terminology," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    17. Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Warren Pearce, 2020. "Trouble in the trough: how uncertainties were downplayed in the UK’s science advice on Covid-19," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-6, December.
    19. Heinz, Nicolai & Koessler, Ann-Kathrin, 2021. "Other-regarding preferences and pro-environmental behaviour: An interdisciplinary review of experimental studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    20. Kostas Zafiropoulos, 2012. "Connectivity Practices and Activity of Greek Political Blogs," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-18, August.
    21. Aleksandra Dulic & Miles Thorogood & Marlowe Sam & Maria Correia & Sarah Alexis & Jeanette Armstrong, 2023. "Okanagan Waterways Past, Present and Future: Approaching Sustainability through Immersive Museum Exhibition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-25, November.
    22. Dylan Bugden, 2022. "Denial and distrust: explaining the partisan climate gap," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-23, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00582-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.