Last week, I wrote a post criticising the climate change communication strategies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since then, I’ve been thinking a lot about the role that theories of change play in shaping climate change communication strategies. A theory of change is essentially an idea about how things change in the world. Do you think political leaders make change happen, or do you think mass movements of people lead change? Do you think change is random, chaotic, or predictable? Do you think it happens through incremental improvement, or abrupt transformation? Everyone answers these questions differently and the combination of these answers makes up an individual’s theory of change.
Your theory of change forms an important part of the way you see the world. It’s a component of your worldview and it acts as a filter or frame, shaping the kind of actions that you value. If you believe change is random and uncontrollable, then you will not be inclined to take action to shape the world. You might become a fatalist, believing that change happens to you and you have no agency to control it. Whereas, if you believe politicians lead important changes in the world, then you might be interested in taking political action. You might become a strong advocate for the political leaders that you trust, or you might even run for political office yourself.
Theories of change matter when we are designing communication strategies on climate change. Climate change communicators are trying to change something and their decisions about what to change, who to engage about that change, and what methods to employ will be guided by their individual theory of change. If I think politicians lead change, and they are the ones that can put in place an effective response to climate change, then I will probably engage politicians and try and convince them of the need to act. If I think civil society leads change, then my communications are more likely to try and recruit more members of the public to the cause and ask them to take actions that strengthen civil society.
One of the big problems is that theories of change, like worldviews in general, are often unconscious. We don’t realise that we have these filters and frames in place – they are just part of the way we see the world, so self evident that they are not brought to mind. If we do the critical reflection to bring our theories of change into our conscious awareness, then we can start to ask ourselves whether those theories actually hold up to scrutiny. Becoming aware of our theories of change is the first step to building more effective theories and more effective change strategies.
The IPCC’s theory of change
Returning then to the case of the IPCC, what kind of theory of change is evident in the IPCC reporting process? The first thing to note is that there is no single IPCC theory of change. The IPCC is a diverse body, made up of scientists and policy makers with diverse theories of change. Participants in the IPCC process have different worldviews and would be hoping to achieve different things. Having said that, it is possible to discern some common elements in the IPCC approach.
First, I would argue that many involved in the IPCC process hold a strong belief that people should listen to the expert opinion of scientists and take action that is consistent with that advice. In my previous post, I quoted Rajendra Pachauri (Chairperson of the IPCC) who said:
We either continue on the path that we’re on and possibly face catastrophic consequences of climate change, or we listen to the voice of science, and act accordingly [my emphasis].
This eloquently captures an aspect of the IPCC theory of change – change should be consistent with the voice of science.
Second, the IPCC process assumes that policymakers are the key change agents. All of the major IPCC reports include a ‘Summary for Policymakers’. The theory of change that is apparent here is that the scientists will provide the policymakers with advice, and the policymakers will act on that advice. There is no ‘Summary for the General Public’, or ‘Summary for Civil Society’. The IPCC aims to deliver policy-relevant advice for policymakers to act on.
Third, the IPCC values a separation between science and policy. The scientists provide the evidence, and the policymakers decide what to do about it. In this theory of change, it is not the role of scientists to get involved in the messy politics. As noted on the IPCC website:
The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.
Finally, the theory of change is arguably top-down rather than bottom-up. The IPCC works primarily at the global or international scale to create change in international political negotiations on climate change. It is not trying to build grassroots action on climate change.
Now this assessment is obviously a simplification but I do think it captures key elements of the theory of change that is embedded in the IPCC process. To be clear, I am not trying to say that this theory of change is wrong. But it is certainly partial; it is only one possible pathway towards effective change on climate change. And the evidence for this theory of change so far is not convincing.
The scientific method requires us to revise our theories when the evidence contradicts them, and that should go for our theories of change too. We now have five large social experiments available to us to test the theory of change that producing a comprehensive assessment report will lead to an effective response to climate change – in the form of the five IPCC assessment reports to date. All have been successful in keeping climate change on the agenda and have provided an evidence base for numerous other change initiatives. On many counts, the reports have been a roaring success. If your theory of change values slow cultural change over time, then the IPCC reports have made a wonderful contribution. But they haven’t got us to the point of effective action on climate change. They haven’t generated a tipping point. It seems to me that this particular theory of change might need revision.
Coordinating theories of change
My own theory of change is more akin to that put forward by Elinor Ostrom in her work on polycentrism. I believe that we need diverse types of action from multiple sectors to successfully tackle climate change. We need action by forward-thinking politicians, development of new markets by established businesses, disruptive growth of emergent industries, a mass movement of the people, civil disobedience, international agreements, grassroots action, campaigning, advocacy, eloquent speeches, self sacrifice, self interest, and any number of other strategies. The key problem then becomes one of coordination. How do we prevent these many strategies from working against each other, and bring them into concert?
There are plenty of examples of theories of change working against each other. For example, the IPCC theory of change outlined above comes into conflict with those who advocate what has been called ‘brightsiding’. Brightsiding involves focusing on the positive opportunities (the bright side) associated with responding to climate change and avoiding any mention of the negative impacts of climate change. The idea is that people are sick and tired of the ‘doom and gloom’ warnings about climate change and that these warnings just make people fearful and guilty, leading to paralysis and denial. Instead, brightsiders talk about the positive future we can aspire to – a clean, green future without pollution. They present inspiring visions intended to motivate action and positive agency.
Whatever you might think of the strategy of brightsiding, I hope you can see the issue here. Those who advocate and attempt brightsiding are doing so in a world where the IPCC reports exist. They are doing so in a world where the media picks up every dire warning from the IPCC and presents it in the nightly news without any sense of what individuals can do about it. It’s impossible to just focus on the bright side, because we are all bombarded with messages about climate change that remind us of the possible catastrophes that lie ahead. So we have a clash of theories of change.
I don’t know of any simple answer to this, beyond continually engaging in dialogue about our diverse strategies and theories of change. But I think one response is to actively seek diversity in whatever you are doing so that more theories of change can come into your considerations. For the IPCC, maybe that requires a different kind of process, in which the primacy of peer-reviewed science is reduced and more diverse voices are engaged in not just collecting the evidence but talking about what it means and what should be done. Perhaps the IPCC could reinvent itself as a space for global dialogue on climate change.
Personally, I think we need the IPCC to keep doing what it does, but we also need to realise that what it does is steeped in a particular theory of change that has not been very successful. There are plenty of people out there working away diligently on strategies that are based on different theories of change. The problem is that the IPCC process is so big and loud that it sucks a lot of the oxygen away from these other important initiatives.
What are the great initiatives you know about that are really effective at creating change on climate change? I’d love to hear about them in the comments.
