Blog Post #3 on research gap
When writing my literature review about climate change science communication to the public, I found that there is a research gap in studying the use of "trigger words" in communicating climate science. I was able to find a PTW journal discussing the use of different trigger words in governmental documents. Some examples of trigger words when it comes to talking about climate change can be the words, "climate change", "global warming", "fossil fuels", and many more. These words can make some sociopolitical groups feel like they are being left out of the conversation on climate change. They can also make some sociopolitical groups completely disregard the importance of the information being presented in front of them. This research gap is an important topic to look at in more depth for several reasons. The main reason being that making a wide variety of groups feel included in the conversation about climate change is a key part of affectively communicating climate change science to the public.
Unfortunately, you are studying one of the most controversial topics in today's sociopolitical climate. While my MA is in Geography, the department shared spaces and courses with the Environmental Studies department; there was a lot of discussion about how to approach the topic when I was there between 2008 and 2012.
ReplyDeleteThe key problem isn't so much the rhetoric being used in the research, as there are a variety of ways that can sway opinion among researchers and consumers of the information. The general consensus (at the time, at least, though I suspect that it's still true) was that the topic itself - regardless of how its framed or termed - will be dismissed out-of-hand simply because it does not align with economic development goals, political bias, political lobbying goals and funding, and socioeconomic realities among the laypeople.
So, here's my recommendation on how to do an interesting lit review/research proposal through the lens of PTW rhetoric. You may need to switch the track of the research not so much from the topic of climate change, global warming, and fossil fuels, but focus more on the term "cognitive dissonance." This may require pulling several more articles from several disciplines (including PTW) to understand how rhetoric reinforces cognitive dissonance regarding a subject, or how it can be used to bypass some of the mental blocks in the audience.
If you're not familiar with the cognitive dissonance concept, the easiest way to explain it is like this: people in a town 100 miles downriver from a massive dam will plan evacuation routes, alert systems, and flood mitigation strategies while advocating for more safety inspections and improvements to the dam. People living in the town right below the dam are less likely to do so, and are more likely to fight against any "meddling" with their livelihoods, because they don't want to think about the possibility of the dam failing.
The same phenomenon happens when it comes to climate science. People who are dependent on things like fossil fuels (or, for a more close-to-here example, agriculture and water use in the desert) for their livelihood will ignore the facts, no matter how well documented, because it threatens their income.
One way you could approach your topic as a PTW-oriented research project is to identify the major key words and phrases associated with environmental sciences related to climate change, then construct a hybrid quantitative/qualitative survey that would be administered in different parts of the country to determine things like economic status, education level, political leaning, and religious identification, then do an analysis to determine certain terminology can be linked to the cognitive dissonance that lead to the dismissal of the research and evidence.
Hopefully that helps you think of ways to design your research proposal.
Hi Cheyenne,
ReplyDeleteI think your Lit. Review and blog #3 both suggest great possibilities for research on CC science communication from a PTW standpoint. After having read your synthesized sources from the previous writing assignment, I really like your idea of starting out with trigger words as seen in public spaces (print and/or digital). Your blog reflection seems to springboard a rhetorical exigency for this type of inquiry and am sure, once your research design/proposal has been set from a specific research methodology (and if conducted after 3450), it would be a welcome addition to PTW scholarship. I believe you've established a good opening/edge here to pursue your topic all the more. Am looking forward to chatting with you more about your plans.
Dr. B