From influencing to engagement: a framing model for climate communication in polarised settings

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of the different components of the climate policy engagement framework.

Component of framework	Description
Goal	The beginning of the process requires recognition of the goal, and this is an important step in separating the climate policy engagement framework from the communicating for influence approach. The goal in the engagement framework centres around relationship-building opening and sustaining discussion with a specific public, to help build a wider social support base for climate policy.
Values, identity, and legacy	Engagement will take place within a specific context relevant to a particular public. There are many social factors that could be considered, although, there are three critical to this context: (1) values, (2) social identity, and (3) the legacy of previous engagements/communication. Values and social identity have been shown to influence the way one interacts with climate information, as well as which voices appear credible. An ‘in-group’ messenger can have greater communication success and can help connect with broader less-engaged publics. The legacy can capture the outcomes of previous interactions, sometimes acting as a barrier to engagement.
Actors	There are two types of actors applicable in this situation: the policy-side actors and public-side actors. The policy-side actors can contain people embedded in policymaking, as well as advocates for a specific policy. The public-side contains specific publics which may be individuals working in a specific industry, a community group, or another social group. The engagement process occurs mostly between the policy advocates who have a policy or solution they wish to see implemented, and a specific public. Through this, policy-side actors are aiming to engage a relevant public that may help generate support for the policy.
Communication	The communication that takes place during the engagement is best suited to two-way interactions. This flows first from the goal to open discussion and is also a strategy that can help to build a richer picture of a public’s values and identity. Frames in communication can be used in reflexive ways as identity indicators to learn more about a public. This in turn, helps to facilitate further discussion and prevents a shutting down of conversation. This differs to the communicating for influence approach which is centred around matching the right frames and the audience to achieve a specific pre-defined outcome.
Outcomes	The outcomes of engagement will vary depending on the underlying strategy. However, these should relate somewhat to the goal, where discussion can be sustained, and further social division prevented or remedied. Building of relationships is a relevant potential outcome as well as gaining a deeper picture of the social context of a public. Short-term outcomes may result, although their longevity will depend on sustaining interactions into the future. Hence, a focus here should be on the long-term outcomes that can result from engagement.
Reshaping social context	The final part of the framework is important for turning this process into a cycle which allows for constant refinement. The frames used in engagement, the social context, and the outcomes will all be factors that help reshape the context in which future engagement will happen. This then means future engagement will be guided by an updated social context, where unproductive frames can be replaced with something more productive. Over time, this helps move in the direction of building greater social support for climate policy as engagement will always be focussed on connecting effectively with a public.