Professor and CRC IRES, University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Background/Question/Methods
As the ecological crisis worsens and gains a public platform, many ecologists including students, practitioners, and researchers are engaging more actively and directly in policymaking and public discourse. But the most popular forms of science engagement are arguably not well aligned with the transformative changes that are needed for sustainable futures, nor the social science of transformation.
In this talk, I will analyze (1) science communication (both via journalists and social media), (2) engagement with policymakers and practitioners, and (3) co-designed research with communities and organizations. For each, I will explicitly consider the fit with the science of global sustainable pathways, drawing upon the IPBES Global Assessment, and the social science research on human action and social change.
Results/Conclusions
While all three dominant forms of science engagement have evolved in productive ways, I find that all are generally better suited to incremental than transformative change. All three engage with only limited components of the priority governance interventions (“levers”) or points of intervention (“leverage points”). Moreover, none of these forms of science engagement are well poised to yield human action or achieve social change.
Thus, while the primary modes of science engagement all have important roles to play in fostering awareness and incremental change in policy and practice, more is needed if ecologists are to play a meaningful role in transformations toward sustainable pathways. I identify three key additional roles for ecologists: (a) analyzing in accessible ways the broader system effects of policies, initiatives and campaigns; (b) helping concerned activists—especially the youth movement—understand the pertinent science to strategize meaningful interventions; and (c) building communities of knowledge and practice seeking transformative change.
