Articulating Geoengineering: Identifying an Understanding of Geoengineering Technology Through the Crutzen +10 Special Issue Forum
Abstract
This article explores intertextuality, research questions, and arguments scientists use to articulate the legitimacy of geoengineering practices as “good science.” I employ critical discourse analysis to draw out patterns in articles from an invited special forum about the validity of geoengineering technology as a solution to climate change. Articulation theory guides my study of how scientists define what counts as “good science” by analyzing how geoengineering scientists legitimize their research as methodologically strong and beneficial to society. This project serves as a first step in clarifying how scientific debate influences broader circles and the potential social impacts of these debates.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Anshelm J., Hansson H. (2014). Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering. Energy Research & Social Science, 2, 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.001
Bloome D., Egan-Robertson A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 304–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/747928
Boettcher M., Schäfer S. (2017). Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research: Introduction to the Crutzen + 10 special issue. Earth’s Future, 5(3), 266–277, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000521
Caldeira K., Bala G. (2017). Reflecting on 50 years of geoengineering. Earth’s Future, 5(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000454
Collins H. M. (1981). The place of the “core-set’ in modern science: Social contingency with methodological propriety in science. History of Science, 19(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/007327538101900102
Crutzen P. J. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change, 77, Article 211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y
Evans R., Collins H. (2008). Expertise: From attribute to attribution and back again? In Hackett E., Amsterdamska O., Lynch M., Wajcman J. (Eds.). The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 609–630). MIT Press.
Fairclough N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002004
Fairclough N., Wodak R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In van Dijk T. (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 2. Discourse as social interaction (p. 258–284). Sage.
Fortun M., Fortun K. (2005). Scientific imaginaries and ethical plateaus in contemporary U.S. toxicology. American Anthropologist, 107(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2005.107.1.043
Hamilton C. (2013). Earth masters: The dawn of the age of climate engineering (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.
Hansen L. (2006). Security as practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian War (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Harding A., Moreno-Cruz J. B. (2016), Solar geoengineering economics: From incredible to inevitable and half-way back. Earth’s Future, 4(12), 569-577. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000462
Hilgartner S. (2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama (2nd ed.). Stanford University Press.
Himmelsbach R. (2018). How scientists advising the European Commission on research priorities view climate engineering proposals. Science and Public Policy, 45(1), 124-133. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx053
Huttunen S., Hildén M. (2014). Framing the controversial: Geoengineering in academic literature. Science Communication, 36(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013492435
Irvine P. J., Kravitz B., Lawrence M. G., Gerten D., Caminade C., Gosling S. M., Hendy E. J., Kassie B. T., Kissling W. D., Muri H., Oschlies A., Smith S. J. (2017). Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering. Earth’s Future, 5(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000389
Jasanoff S., Kim S. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), Article 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4
Keith D. W., Irvine P. J. (2016). Solar geoengineering could substantially reduce climate risks—A research hypothesis for the next decade. Earth’s Future, 4(11), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000465
Kravitz B., Caldeira K., Boucher O., Robock A., Rasch P., Alterskjær K., Bou Karam D., Cole J. N. S., Curry C. L., Haywood J. M., Irvine P. J., Ji D., Jones A., Kristjánsson J. E., Lunt D. J., Moore J. C., Niemeier U., Schmidt H., Schulz M.,. . . Yoon J.-H. (2013). Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoIMP). Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmosphere, 118(15), 8320–8332. https://doi.org/10.1002/JGRD.50646
Laclau E., Mouffe C. (1985) Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
Latham J. (1990). Control of global warming. Nature, 347(6291), 339–340. https://doi.org/10.1038/347339b0
Latour B. (1988). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
Lawson S. (2011). Articulation, antagonism, and intercalation in Western military imaginaries. Security Dialogue, 42(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010610393775
Lerderer M., Kreuter J. (2018). Organising the unthinkable in times of crisis: Will climate engineering become the weapon of last resort in the Anthropocene? Organization, 25(4), 472–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508418759186
Low S. (2017), The futures of climate engineering. Earth’s Future, 5(1), 67-71. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000442
MacCracken M. C. (2016). The rationale for accelerating regionally focused climate intervention research. Earth’s Future, 4(12), 649–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000450
Oreskes N., Conway E. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Press.
Quaas J., Quaas M. F., Boucher O., Rickels W. (2016). Regional climate engineering by radiation management: Prerequisites and prospects. Earth’s Future, 4(12), 618–625. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000440
Reynolds J. L., Parker A., Irvine P. (2016). Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome. Earth’s Future, 4(12), 562–568. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000416
Robock A. (2016). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: More research needed. Earth’s Future, 4(12), 644–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000407
Robock A., Oman L., Stenchikov G. L. (2008). Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmosphere, 113(D16), Article D16101. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010050
Schiappa E. (2003). Defining reality: Definition and the politics of meaning. Southern Illinois University Press.
Sikka T. (2012). A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2012.656377
Star S. L., Griesemer J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
Stilgoe J. (2015). Experiment Earth: Responsible innovation in geoengineering. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315849195
Szerszynski B., Kearnes M., Macnaghten P., Owen R., Stilgoe J. (2013). Why solar radiation management and democracy won’t mix. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 45(12), 2809–2816. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45649
Taylor C. A. (1996). Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. University of Wisconsin Press.
Tilmes S., Fasullo J., Lamarque J., Marsh D., Mills M., Alterskjær K., Muri H., Kristjánsson J. E., Boucher O., Schulz M., Cole J. N. S., Curry C. L., Jones A., Haywood J., Irvine P. J., Ji D., Moore J. C., Karam D. B., Kravitz B.,. . . Watanabe S. (2013). The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmosphere, 118(19), 11036–11058. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50868
Biographies
Megan E. Cullinan (MA, University of Montana) is a doctoral candidate at the University of Utah. Her research stands at the intersection of science, health, and environmental communication. Because all three interest areas are deeply and materially intertwined, her work aims to help scholars and activists better understand and apply pressure to the tension in societal structures that currently lead to power imbalances and further exploitation of knowledge, people, and the more-than-human world.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: June 13, 2020
Issue published: June 2020
Keywords
History
Issue published: June 2020
Published online: June 13, 2020
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 273
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 0
There are no citing articles to show.
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
