Abstract
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has completed its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Here, we explore the social scientific networks informing Working Group III (WGIII) assessment of mitigation for the AR5. Identifying authors’ institutional pathways, we highlight the persistence and extent of North–South inequalities in the authorship of the report, revealing the dominance of US and UK institutions as training sites for WGIII authors. Examining patterns of co-authorship between WGIII authors, we identify the unevenness in co-authoring relations, with a small number of authors co-writing regularly and indicative of an epistemic community’s influence over the IPCC’s definition of mitigation. These co-authoring networks follow regional patterns, with significant EU–BRICS collaboration and authors from the US relatively insular. From a disciplinary perspective, economists, engineers, physicists and natural scientists remain central to the process, with insignificant participation of scholars from the humanities. The shared training and career paths made apparent through our analysis suggest that the idea that broader geographic participation may lead to a wider range of viewpoints and cultural understandings of climate change mitigation may not be as sound as previously thought.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hulme, M. & Mahoney, M. What do we know about the IPCC? Prog. Phys. Geogr. 34, 705–718 (2010).
Agrawala, S. Context and early origins of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climatic Change 39, 605–620 (1998).
Agrawala, S. Structural and process history of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climatic Change 39, 621–642 (1998).
Biermann, F. Institutions for scientific advice: Global environmental assessments and their influence in developing countries. Glob. Gov. 8, 195–219 (2002).
Hughes, H. Bourdieu and the IPCC’s symbolic power. Glob. Environ. Polit. (in the press).
Kandlikar, M. & Sagar, A. Climate change research and analysis in India: An integrated assessment of a south–north divide. Glob. Environ. Change 9, 119–138 (1999).
Demeritt, D. The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 91, 307–37 (2001).
Shackley, S. & Wynne, B. Global Climate Change: The mutual construction of an emergent science-policy domain. Sci. Public Policy 22, 218–230 (1995).
Lahsen, M. in Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance (eds Jasanoff, S. & Martello, M. L.) Ch. 6, 151–172 (MIT Press, 2004).
Siebenhuner, B. The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments—the case of the IPCC. Glob. Environ. Change 13, 113–123 (2003).
Skodvin, T. Structure and Agent in the Scientific Diplomacy of Climate Change: An Empirical Case Study of Science-Policy Interaction in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Kluwer Academic, 2000).
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. Britain and the international panel on climate change: The impacts of scientific advice on global warming Part II: The domestic story of the British response to climate change. Environ. Polit. 4, 175–196 (1995).
Edwards, P. N. Global climate science, uncertainty and politics: Data-laden models, model-filtered data. Sci. Cult. 8, 437–472 (1999).
Hulme, M. Geographical work at the boundaries of climate change. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 33, 5–11 (2007).
Miller, C. in States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (ed Jasanoff, S.) Ch. 3, 46–66 (Routledge, 2004).
Bjurström, A. & Polk, M. Physical and economic bias in climate change research. A scientometric study of IPCC third assessment report. Climatic Change 108, 1–22 (2011).
Ho-Lem, C., Zerriffi, H. & Kandlikar, M. Who participates in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and why: A quantitative assessment of the national representation of authors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 1308–1317 (2011).
Karlsson, S., Srebotnjak, T. & Gonzales, P. Understanding the north–south knowledge divide and its implications for policy: A quantitative analysis of the generation of scientific knowledge in the environmental sciences. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 668–684 (2007).
Vasileiadou, E., Heimeriks, G. & Petersen, A. C. Exploring the impact of IPCC assessment reports on science. Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 1052–1061 (2011).
Yearley, S. Sociology and climate change after Kyoto: What roles for social science in understanding climate change? Curr. Sociol. 57, 389–405 (2009).
Victor, D. Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature 520, 27–29 (2015).
Hart, D. M. & Victor, D. G. Scientific Elites and the making of United-States-policy for climate-change research, 1957–74. Soc. Stud. Sci. 23, 643–680 (1993).
Hecht, A. D. & Tirpak, D. Framework agreement on climate-change—a scientific and policy history. Climatic Change 29, 371–402 (1995).
IPCC Selection of Lead Authors (CLA and LA) and Review Editors for The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (IPCC, 2010); http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/bureau-sessions/bureau41rep.pdf
Haas, P. M. (ed.) Knowledge, Power and International Policy Coordination. Special Issue Vol. 46 (International Organization, 1992).
Collins, H. M. Public experiments and displays of virtuosity: The core-set revisited. Soc. Stud. Sci. 18, 715–748 (1988).
Crane, D. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities (Univ. Chicago Press, 1972).
Hulme, M. & Mahoney, M. Climate panel is ripe for examination. Nature 502, 604 (2013).
Edenhofer, O. & Minx, J. Mapmakers and navigators, facts and values. Science 345, 36–37 (2014).
Shove, E. Beyond the ABC: Climate change and theories of social change. Environ. Plan. A 42, 1273–1285 (2010).
Bodin, O. & Prell, C. (eds) Social Networks and Natural Resource Management. Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance Ch. 14, 347–373 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).
Rantala, S. Knowledge and Brokerage in REDD + Policy Making: A Policy Network Analysis of the Case of Tanzania Working Paper No. 201203 (Sustainability Science Program, Harvard University, 2012)
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M.-G. & Freeman, L. C. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis (Analytic Technologies, 2010).
Burt, R. S. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard Univ. Press, 1992).
Brass, D. J. in Research in Politics and Society (eds Moore, G. & Whitt, J. A.) 295–323 (JAI, 1992).
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the assistance provided by M. Calvet-Mir in data collection and J. L. Molina in data analysis. E.C. and L.C.-M. acknowledge the financial support of the Biodiversa Framework Project INVALUABLE: Values, Markets, and Policies for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (PRI-PIMBDV-2011-1072). E.C. has also received support from the Spanish Research, Development and Innovation Secretariat through a ‘Ramón y Cajal’ research fellowship (RYC-2010-07183).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
E.C. and M.P. had the original idea for the article. L.C.-M. and M.P. developed the social network analysis for training and co-authoring patterns. E.C. analysed the authors’ disciplinary backgrounds. H.H. provided important background concerning the existing literature on the sociology of the IPCC, and contributed to data collection and analysis. M.P. and E.C. developed the first draft of the article, and all four authors extensively revised and edited the text. E.C. completed and edited the final version of the article and all Supplementary Information.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Corbera, E., Calvet-Mir, L., Hughes, H. et al. Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report. Nature Clim Change 6, 94–99 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2782
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2782
This article is cited by
-
Changing fire regimes in East and Southern Africa’s savanna-protected areas: opportunities and challenges for indigenous-led savanna burning emissions abatement schemes
Fire Ecology (2023)
-
An international panel for ocean sustainability needs to proactively address challenges facing existing science–policy platforms
npj Ocean Sustainability (2023)
-
Climate action post-Paris: how can the IPCC stay relevant?
npj Climate Action (2023)
-
Analysing engagement with Indigenous Peoples in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report
npj Climate Action (2023)
-
Economists are not engaged enough with the IPCC
npj Climate Action (2023)