Early-career scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A moderate or radical path towards a deliberative future?

ABSTRACT

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been criticized for having a limited impact on policy decisions and actions. To enhance the IPCC’s impact, it has been argued that the organization needs to adopt a more inclusive assessment process. However, what that means in terms of institutional changes is contested. Two main strands are discernible in the literature: studies advocating for moderate versus radical changes. In light of these two possible pathways, this study analyzes how the new role of Chapter Scientist shapes the conditions for socialization and what implications this may have for the future direction of the IPCC’s deliberative capacity. By identifying the norms and logic that guide inclusion in the role of Chapter Scientists, the study sheds light on which path the organization is moving. The study shows how the IPCC sustains a moderate path of inclusion and deliberation, as well as illustrates how the introduction of the role of Chapter Scientists could open up the organization to more radical institutional changes, which some view as essential.

KEYWORDS:

• IPCC
• Chapter Scientists
• early-career scientists
• socialization
• institutional change
• science-policy relations

1. Introduction

Despite its prominence, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been criticized for having a limited impact on policy decisions, actions, and environmental governance (e.g. Haas 2004; Haas and Stevens 2011; Stocker 2013; Stocker and Plattner 2014). There are many political reasons why the IPCC’s assessment reports have not been able to foster global agreements on reducing co₂ levels; however, the hopes have remained high that scientific progress will stimulate impact and action (e.g. Iyalomhe et al. 2013; Jänicke 2017). It has been argued that the lack of policy action represents a failure of the IPCC, or at least can be derived from weaknesses in its organization and strategy. One of the major internal reasons for the limited influence of the IPCC on policy has been argued to be the IPCC’s failure to address multiple biases within the organization, despite continuous attempts to do so (e.g. IPBES 2015a, 2015b). Since its founding, the IPCC has been shown to have a geographical bias concerning the representation of scientists in favor of the global north (Agrawala 1998a, 1998b; Pasgaard et al. 2015), a gender bias in favor of men (Corbera et al. 2016), and a disciplinary bias in favor of the natural sciences over social sciences, humanities, and indigenous knowledge (Ford, Vanderbilt, and Berrang-Ford 2012; Ford et al. 2016; Obermeister 2017).

Views differ regarding how these biases negatively affect the influence of the IPCC on global environmental governance. Some hold that these biases impair the legitimacy of the IPCC’s assessment reports in underrepresented regions and at worst undermine the credibility of any consensus put forward by the IPCC (Hulme and Mahoney 2010; Siebenhüner 2003). Others argue that these biases lead to the exclusion of contextual knowledge and social science perspectives, resulting in narrow knowledge and a limited understanding of climate change and delimiting potential solutions (see Berg and Lidskog 2018). Both lines of critique suggest that to enhance the IPCC’s impact on policy and environmental governance, it is necessary to eliminate these biases by working towards a more inclusive assessment process. In the same line of reasoning, but on a more practical level, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agncy (PBL) in 2010 presented a list of concrete recommendations on what IPCC could do to increase inclusion and strengthen its deliberative qualities (Hajer 2012; PBL 2010). One of these recommendations was to strengthen the IPCC’s quality control by ‘appointing and employing chapter assistants who will help the Coordinating Lead Authors with quality-control issues’ (PBL 2010, 47).

Historically, the IPCC’s most fundamental strategy to become a trustworthy, credible, relevant, and legitimate organization has been to ensure that the organization, in all respects, stands for scientific expertise (e.g. IPCC 2019a; Hoppe 1999). A key factor in this strategy has been to enroll world-leading scientists to execute global knowledge assessments on climate change in order to provide decision-makers with facts (e.g. Beck 2011, 2012). However, while working on the fifth assessment report, the IPCC for the first time made an exception to this strategy and enrolled early-career scientists¹ to assist in the assessment in line with PBL’s recommendations on implementing an assisting function in the chapters. The assisting position was called the Chapter Scientist² position.

This study aims to analyze how the new role of Chapter Scientist affects the conditions for socialization and how the introduction of this role relates to the IPCC’s work on eliminating biases, creating expertise, and producing policy relevant knowledge to impact policy decisions and actions. As a theoretical framework, the study draws on Berg and Lidskog (2018) representation of the two different pathways for institutional development and change (a moderate and a radical one) that are dominating the academic debate regarding the changes needed to strengthen the legitimacy and impact of the IPCC. The theoretical framework is further developed by elaborating on what socialization along each path would look like. This framework is used to analyze how the conditions for socialization are shaped by the new role of Chapter Scientist and what implications this socialization may have for the future direction of the IPCC’s deliberative capacity.

In the following section, we present the theoretical framework. Thereafter follows a presentation of the empirical study and the material on which the analysis relies. This is followed by an analytical section that is structured around the presentation and analysis of different dimensions of the IPCC’s introduction of early-career scientists. In the last two sections, we elaborate on the general implications of our results and present the study’s conclusions.

2. Theoretical framework – socialization’s potential for institutional change

Institutions have their formal structure, but they also consist of norms, rules, and identities by which the individuals within the organization are socialized into the institutional culture (Peters 2016; Meyer and Rowan 1977). The norms, rules and identities of an organization have different characters in different kinds of organizations, such as public organizations, companies, or faith-based organizations (Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury 2012). In institutions that organize a strong profession, the practices, norms and identities of the profession play a key role in the socialization process (Tierney and Rhoads 1993, 1996; Johannessen and Unterreiner 2010). By reproducing norms and practices, and signaling the appropriate action within the organization, socialization creates continuity between generations and stability within the organization (March and Olsen 2006; Gustafsson 2018). However, the socialization process also offers an opportunity for institutional change by offering a chance to implement new practices, norms, and procedures. The potential to change (aspects of) the organization through inclusion and socialization is particularly strong when new functions and groups of employees are introduced to the organization. These social processes allow the opportunity to shape new routines to guide the organization’s work; they can not only shape newcomers’ way of operating in the organization but may also affect the organization itself. Thus, the socializing process provokes the question of whether to work for continuity or for change, which may affect the organization’s present and future ways of operating. In exploring such intentions it is essential to pay attention to the organizational motives and intentions, as well as how these relate to the socialization of professional norms and practices within the organization. The motives, norms and practices of the socialization of a new group into the organization constitute a culture of change (or maintenance) and may, therefore, indicate the level of disruption that is likely to come from the introduction of this new group.

In previous discussions on the future of the IPCC, the emphasis has been placed on the importance of making the IPCC’s organizational design, procedures, and knowledge more inclusive and collaborative. By synthesizing the different claims and positions of these debates, Berg and Lidskog (2018) outlined two different pathways towards broader inclusion within the IPCC and the enhancement of the deliberative capacity of global environmental governance. These two pathways are a moderate path and a radical path in terms of how much they challenge the professional norms prevailing within the organization. These pathways derive from different epistemological positions and have different motives and goals for increased inclusion (Berg and Lidskog 2018). In what follows, we will present and elaborate on these pathways. We will also suggest what is needed of a socialization process to prepare early-career scholars for deliberative work along either one of these two pathways.

2.1. Moderate path

The moderate path is the one with the most resemblance to the historical trajectory of the IPCC. The science-policy relation of this path stems from a rationalistic knowledge view in which truth-finding is at the heart of the scientific enterprise, and the main indicator of truth is the scientific consensus. Thus, it represents the linear model in which science speaks truth to politics, and politicians act on the findings and implement solutions (Beck 2011; Sundqvist et al. 2017).

According to this perspective, the primary function of the broader inclusion of researchers is to facilitate collective decision capacity. Whereas the scientific consensus is considered essential for directing policy debate and informing decisions, the inclusion of a broader representation of researchers with different backgrounds is regarded as beneficial for the legitimacy of the organization. Broader inclusion is thus favorable for the acceptance and influence of assessment reports in international negotiations. Thus, the effect of extended inclusion is intended to go beyond the scientific sphere by lending credibility to the work and conclusions of the IPCC as well as to its policy advice and to the climate issue more generally. The researchers included to ameliorate regional representation are not primarily considered to bring additional perspectives with them, though they may increase the inclusion of regional data. The social scientific knowledge included has mainly been knowledge that may aid implementation and adaptation, which have been matters of concern (Berg and Lidskog 2018).

The different pathways represent different understandings of how policy action is best stimulated by the IPCC. According to the logic of the moderate path, a scientific consensus pushes policy action since it unravels uncertainties and thereby removes space for contestation and argumentation. The different pathways also represent different understandings of how the IPCC may safeguard its authoritative position. These differences stem from the ontological and epistemological assumptions at the heart of these respective positions (Berg and Lidskog 2018). For proponents of the moderate path, the credibility and authoritative position of science stem from its strict and systematic search for truth and thus its purity from interests (Gieryn 1983; Swedlow 2007).

2.2. Radical path

The radical path breaks with the institutionalized logic of the IPCC. According to the proponents of the radical path, a reason behind the limitation of the IPCC’s influence on political decision-making and action is its restricted and scientific framing. The narrow and scientific framing of the IPCC prevents exploration of the significance of climate change for how we think about ourselves and our societies (Hulme 2009). A more complex understanding of the social embedding of climate change and its driving forces calls for a broader set of perspectives involved in accounting for these issues (Beck et al. 2014; Turnhout et al. 2012). Additionally, the acknowledgment of diverging local contexts is crucial. According to Wynne (2010), the current strongly scientific framing of the problem of climate change, together with the economistic framing of appropriate solutions, may alienate the public and prevent collectives around the world from taking responsibility for climate change. It is argued that there is currently a dislocation between the scientific problem representation and local contextualized experiences (Jasanoff 2004).

The emphasis here is on the inclusion of perspectives and not on the inclusion of people as representatives. ‘[T]his path strives toward a systematic exploration of different problem framings, options, and perspectives instead of pursuing the current search for a proxy for truth’ (Berg and Lidskog 2018, 8). Including different perspectives and alternatives and embracing contextualized knowledge leads to a broader set of claims and frames, which provide for a more complex and multifaceted understanding of the problem and its potential solutions. Through the inclusion of perspectives, the radical path also enables and provides the foundation for authentic deliberation both in the scientific and in the policy and public spheres (Berg and Lidskog 2018). This path weakens the role or function that science may have in prompting policy action according to the moderate path, i.e. reducing deliberative space (through scientific consensus) to enable decision-making. However, according to the proponents of the radical path, action is assumed to emerge through a bottom-up process. A more multi-faceted knowledge base would then be able to stimulate a broader set of debates, actions, and policies.

The radical path is based on an idea that knowledge is always co-produced through the dynamics between ostensible dichotomies such as facts and values, nature and culture, and science and policy (Jasanoff 2004). For knowledge to be deemed credible, relevant, legitimate, and trustworthy, it is not enough for it to be scientifically sound and robust; it also needs to be socially robust (Nowotny 2017). For this to happen, the knowledge production process needs to be inclusive and involve multiple forms of perspectives in the knowledge base (cf. Harvey, Cochrane, and Van Epp 2019). There are no ultimate criteria lending authority to the scientific sphere, according to the radical perspective. Authority needs to be constantly enacted (Hajer 2012). Ongoing critical challenges and adequate open responses to critical questioning is essential to maintaining authority (Warren 1996). The authoritative potential of the scientific sphere is strong due to its particular qualities of systematic reasoning. However, its authority is based on the constant enactment of such qualities and not on its unique position. Berg and Lidskog (2018) term this deliberative authority, as opposed to the epistemic authority suggested by the moderate path.

To explore how the new role of Chapter Scientist shapes the conditions for socialization, we will trace the expression of norms and the rationales for the socialization. By identifying the norms and logic that guide inclusion in the role of Chapter Scientists, we may sheds light on which path the organization is moving. Table 1 outlines the ideal-typical motives, norms, and rationales for each pathway.

Table 1. Socialization along the different paths.

	Moderate (path-bound)	Radical (path-breaking)
Purpose of socialization	To sustain logic	To change logic
Relevant candidate for inclusion	Actors who represents underrepresented groups Trained scientists	Actors who add knowledge perspectives Social scientists trained in holistic assessments to identify underlying assumptions, norms, and framings
Norms being socialized	Strong science ‘Speaking truth to power’	Deliberative knowledge processes ‘Making sense together’
Skills being socialized	Traditional scientific skills	Holistic assessment skills
Socialization to what role	Gatekeeper with inclusive ambitions	Facilitator of reflexive scientific analysis

3. Research design and empirical method

To further our knowledge on the deliberative pathways of the IPCC, the analysis of this study focuses on how the new role of Chapter Scientist affects the conditions for socialization and thereby the disruptive potential that this new group carries. The introduction of early-career scientists is a process of socialization that includes transferring the norms and know-how of what it means to be a part of the IPCC and its production of knowledge assessments. Through such socialization, motives, norms, and rationales are either reproduced or changed, which opens up a window for studying the deliberative pathway taken by the IPCC.

In its research design, this study draws on the logic of process-trancing, a method that enables explanations of organizational outcomes, such as events and decisions, by tracing their origin through the social processes that made the outcome happen (cf. explaining-outcome process-trancing (Beach and Pedersen 2013)). This study takes its empirical departure in the introduction of the role of Chapter Scientist. Thus, methodologically, the introduction of the new role of Chapter Scientist is both to be understood as an outcome of a social process within the organisation, as well as a steppingstone for the IPCC’s continuing process of socialization and work on inclusion. The study has been designed to trace this process of introducing the role of Chapter Scientist both backward – to see how the role of Chapter Scientist came to be – and forward – to see how the conditions for socialization are being shaped as the role is being institutionalized.

To follow the institutional traces of the process of introducing the role of Chapter Scientist, the study analyzes documents produced within and outside of the IPCC. Using documents as its primary empirical material allows the study to explore and explain how norms and rationales of socialization and inclusion have become part of the IPCC’s institutional norms and memory (e.g. through documentation) (cf. Shankar, Hakken, and Østerlund 2017). Based on our theoretical framework we then analyse how this institutional memory shape the conditions for socialization. To this end the document material has been complemented with interviews conducted with staff from the IPCC’s three working groups’ TSUs. A limitation of the study is that it has not explored the dynamics and mechanisms of the socialization process itself, e.g. through etnografic research or interviews with Chapter Scientists. This study have had the ambition to trace and analyse the process behind the introduction of the role of Chapter Scientist and to understand the influence that this role might have on the future direction of the IPCC.

The process that led to the introduction of the Chapter Scientist has been traced back through the iteration of two types of materials and related discussions, one being the discussions and decisions in the formal documents of the IPCC, and the other discussions in secondary material reviewing and studying the IPCC. The material collected within the formal settings of the IPCC primarily consists of IPCC Session reports with associated information and work documents (e.g. IPCC 2008a, IPCC 2008b, 2013, 2015a). In total, the study includes 23 IPCC Session reports with associated information and work documents spanning from 2007 to 2019. The material collected on the development and discussions leading up to the introduction of the Chapter Scientists outside the IPCC primarily consists of literature in the form of academic papers and gray literature, including studies of the IPCC’s first introduction of Chapter Scientists (e.g. Chan et al. 2016; Hajer 2012; Schulte-Uebbing et al. 2015; van der Veer et al. 2014). A key publication in this body of literature is the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency’s (PBL 2010) external review of the IPCC performed in 2010.

The process has then been traced forward by following what happened after the introduction of the Chapter Scientist with a focus on how the condition for socialization was shaped. The process tracing followed the formal practice and routines in the IPCC’s use of Chapter Scientists in the initial stages of the sixth assessment cycle. The body of material primarily consisted of IPCC Session reports (e.g. IPCC 2015a, 2018a, 2018b, 2019b), templets, calls, and information material produced by the IPCC’s three working groups (e.g. WGIII TSU 2017a, 2017b), and three interviews with current Technical Support Unit (TSU) staff. The staffers come from all three of the IPCC’s working groups and were asked to participate due to their experience of working with their respective working group’s Chapter Scientists. The interviews were conducted via Skype. Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interview material added information on the establishment and formalization of the role of the Chapter Scientist throughout the day-to-day activities of the three working groups and their collaboration, coordinated by the TSUs. The material was theoretically analyzed using the five dimensions of socialization along the paths of inclusion and deliberation (see Table 1).

The presentation of the result and analysis are organized into three sections using the four first dimensions of socialization: (i) purpose of socialization, (ii) relevant candidate for inclusion, and (iii + iv) norms and skills being socialized. In the final step of the analysis, the theoretical framework was used to explore the general implications of the results for the future direction of the IPCC. These general implications are presented in the discussion, which focuses specifically on the fifth dimension of socialization: (v) socialization into what role.

Through its process-tracing research design, by combining various forms of empirical material, this study has created a body of empirical material that allows analysis of the introduction and development of the role of Chapter Scientist as a new institutional space which shapes the conditions for socialization and thereby the disruptive potential that this new group carries.

4. Result and analysis – introducing the Chapter Scientist

The idea of introducing an assistant function on the chapter level of the IPCC’s assessments is first to be mentioned by the Netherlands in their written comment in the IPCC’s internal evaluation of the fourth assessment process (IPCC 2008b). However, the idea was at that time not picked up in the general IPCC’s plenary discussion (IPCC 2008a). Instead, the first official acknowledgment and comment on the introduction of chapter scientists were made by the IPCC in the internal evaluation of the fifth assessment process (IPCC 2015a). The idea of introducing the role of Chapter Scientist to the IPCC had been officially presented by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) in its independent review of the IPCC fourth assessment report in 2010 (PBL 2010). The introduction of an assisting function was suggested by the PBL (2010) as an effort to strengthen the IPCC’s quality control by becoming more inclusive and deliberative in its way of working. The suggestion was utilized as an accepted practice in the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) by Working Group II and Working Group III (WGII and WGIII) (Schulte-Uebbing et al. 2015; van der Veer et al. 2014). This meant that during the work on AR5, the IPCC for the first time officially enrolled early-career scientists to assist in the assessment as Chapter Scientists.

The main responsibility of the Chapter Scientist ‘was to support chapter teams with technical aspects of chapter development, including cross-checking between findings presented in different parts of the report, additional fact-checking, reference management, and assistance with figures and tables’ (Schulte-Uebbing et al. 2015: 251; cf. PBL 2010, 47). The introduction of the actor category Chapter Scientist formalized work that had been executed informally and ad-hoc in previous assessments, depending on individual Coordinating Lead Authors’ (CLA) possibilities to personally recruit research assistants (Schulte-Uebbing et al. 2015; WGII TSU staffer). With this new function, the IPCC intended to ensure that any future mistakes would not slip through into the final report (Beck 2012; Grundmann 2011; Pearce 2010; Skrydstrup 2013).

As the IPCC moved into its sixth assessment cycle, all three Working Groups chose to use Chapter Scientists. The working groups’ objectives to use Chapter Scientists, the groups’ terms of references and indicative lists of tasks for Chapter Scientists to perform, and the way the Chapter Scientists were introduced and supported throughout their work mostly overlap between the groups. However, the working groups differ in how to finance and recruit the Chapter Scientists. The question of whether the role of Chapter Scientist should be a voluntary or employed position, and how to finance this position, is an ongoing question within the working groups and the IPCC Sessions. As part of this discussion, the suggestion to use the IPCC’s Scholarship Programme Trust Fund to support Chapter Scientists is being explored (IPCC 2018a, 2018b, 2019b). Halfway through the sixth assessment cycle, the different working groups had different ways of financing the Chapter Scientists’ expenses. The working groups also differed in decisions on the related questions of who should be an eligible Chapter Scientist applicant and how to organize the recruitment process.³

This introduction of Chapter Scientists and how it has been structured will be analyzed in the following sections to answer the question of which deliberative future IPCC is preparing for. The analysis will be structured using the two categories of motives, norms, and rationales of the socialization process outlined above (see Table 1): (i) the purpose of the socialization, (ii) who is seen as a relevant candidate for inclusion, and (iii) what norms and skills are being socialized.

4.1. Purpose of socialization

Leading up to IPCC’s fifth assessment cycle, the body of literature in the field of climate change increased exponentially (Minx et al. 2017). This increase led to an enhanced workload for the scientists who were to execute the IPCC’s assessment. The workload grew not only due to the sheer number of publications but also due to a need to establish new procedures and methodologies to manage the many publications and to guarantee a credible and trustworthy assessment process (Minx et al. 2017). As a response to this situation, the Chapter Scientist role was introduced ‘to take on tasks that do not require the level of expertise of CLAs and Lead Authors, freeing up the authors’ time to work on the core scientific assessment’ (Schulte-Uebbing et al. 2015, 254).

It is just taking some of the burden off them [Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors] in terms of checking references and that sort of thing which is really essential and really need to be done for the report, but is something that does not necessarily need the skill of a Lead Author or a Coordinating Lead Author. (WGIII TSU staffer, June, 2018)⁴

With the introduction of the Chapter Scientist, the assessment process was informally divided into two types of tasks: to do the assessment and to fact check the assessment. The division was based on the expertise that was needed to execute the two tasks (cf. Collins and Evans 2007). Previously, these two types of tasks had, within the IPCC, been formally executed by one and the same group of actors: the leading scientists in their roles as CLAs and Lead Authors. However, the introduction of early-career scientists formally included scientists based on their capacity to execute only one of these tasks (to fact check the assessment), without expecting them to have the capacity to execute the task of doing the assessment. As a consequence, the new role required clear criteria for each role to determine who is underqualified for the roles of CLA and Lead Author and who is overqualified for the role of being a Chapter Scientist.

By standardizing terms of reference as well as an indicative list of tasks for the Chapter Scientists, the work that had previously been done by the research assistants as a prolonging of the CLA’s work was made visible and acknowledged. The standardization created clear demarcations between the responsibilities of the Chapter Scientists and those of the other roles in the IPCC: the CLA, the Lead Author, the Contributing Author, and Review Editor roles. Thus, the early-career scientists working as Chapter Scientists were protected from being asked to do too much without gaining additional recognition in terms of, e.g. Contributing Author status, and the IPCC was protected from senior scientists who could potentially try to use the job as Chapter Scientist as an alternative chance to work in the assessment as a Lead Author. Both scenarios are described and commented on by one of the TSU staffers in the following extract.

You would not want a Chapter Scientist to be a really senior scientist who also wants to be an author, as there could disagreement over responsibilities. The Chapter Scientist terms of reference are there because that is really what we are expecting of them, and if they end up pushing to do more,/ … /, that is going beyond that role, and if that happens, they should get credited for that, but they should not go into the role expecting to [be able to do more]. (WGI TSU staffer, August, 2018)

Introducing early-career scientists in the position of Chapter Scientists allowed for a functional division of labor between the different roles in the IPCC based on their different expected levels of expertise (cf. Collins and Evans 2007). Previous to the introduction of Chapter Scientists, the CLAs and Lead Authors had been expected to have the knowledge needed to execute the tasks now assigned to Chapter Scientists. However, with the introduction of the Chapter Scientists, the CLAs and Lead Authors became exempt from these responsibilities to ease their workload. Thus, the functional division of labor reveals how the IPCC’s introduction of Chapter Scientists did not shape the conditions for socialization in ways that enabled the inclusion of new forms of knowledge. Moreover, it did not introduce new actors in the task of doing the assessment since the labor division formally excluded the Chapter Scientists from participation in the task of doing the assessment. Instead, we can see that the IPCC’s introduction of Chapter Scientists enabled the IPCC to sustain its logic of how to organize its knowledge production by advancing on a moderate path of deliberation and inclusion. The functional division of labor confirms the leading scientists as the primary producers of trustworthy, credible, relevant, and legitimate knowledge.

With the introduction of Chapter Scientists, the IPCC created a support structure that allows the leading scientists to make use of their full capacity in doing what they were enrolled to do as CLAs and Lead Authors: to produce credible, relevant, and legitimate assessments. Instead of taking a radical path transforming the logic of the knowledge production process into a more collaborative one, the introduction of early-career scientists has helped confirm that only leading scientists with expertise in the field of climate change are allowed and desired to participate in doing the assessment. Thus, despite the inclusive gesture to enable early-career scientists to participate in the assessment process, the functional division of labor that followed with the introduction of Chapter Scientists counteracted steps towards a more radical approach to knowledge production and science-policy relations.

However, taking the example of the Chapter Scientists in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15), we can see signs that the IPCC’s introduction of early-career scientists in the role of Chapter Scientists could have the potential to take a more radical path. All of the Chapter Scientists in SR15 have contributed to the assessment process in ways that exceed the responsibilities of their role. As the WGI TSU staffer describes it, ‘[In SR15] all [Chapter Scientists] ended up going above and beyond what was expected of them. In fact, all of the Chapter Scientists in [SR] 1.5 ended up getting Contributing Author status in their chapters as well’. In addition, all of the Chapter Scientists in SR15 ended up as co-authors of the Report’s Summary for Policy Makers.

Since early-career scientists have less expert knowledge and are not as specialized within their field, they may draw on a broader knowledgebase than the leading scientists. They do not have the same preunderstanding of issues; they may look at problems from other perspectives and ask different types of questions (cf. Gustafsson 2018). Thus, if allowed to participate in knowledge production in a larger capacity, the introduction of early-career scientists could lead to a collaborative process along a more radical path of deliberation and inclusion. However, to what extent the possibility to simultaneously act in multiple IPCC roles, such as Chapter Scientist and Contributing Author, will allow the socialization process to develop in a more radical direction of knowledge production remains to be seen.

The analysis of the purpose of the introduction and socialization of early-career scientists in the role of Chapter Scientist reveals two primary findings. First, the early-career scientists who worked as Chapter Scientists had the capacity to do more than what the role of a Chapter Scientist asks for. Second, the IPCC’s division of labor between roles means that when early-career scientists do more than what is expected of them as Chapter Scientists, this additional work is acknowledged as contributions in another capacity; Contributing Author. Thus, despite the rigidity of the system that sustains its logic, the system offers some flexibility in that early-career scientists, who have the capacity, could be allowed to contribute to the assessment process by acting in multiple IPCC roles simultaneously.

4.2. Relevant candidate for inclusion

At the IPCC’s 47^th Session in Paris, France, March 2018, a discussion was initiated on the possibility to use the IPCC Scholarship Programme Trust Fund to cover costs for Chapter Scientists from developing countries (IPCC 2018a). While the IPCC Panel has been positive to the idea, strong concerns have also been raised about consequences for the main purpose of the Scholarship Programme Trust Fund; to contribute economic support to graduate and post-graduate studies for early-career scientists from developing countries (2019b). Thus, in preparation for the sixth assessment report, the IPCC decided to stress the ‘benefits of supporting Chapter Scientists from developing countries to participate in the work of the IPCC, but to do so in ways that do not undermine the ability of the Scholarship Fund to continue to support post-graduate activities.’ (IPCC 2019b, 19). The decision initiated a process of standardization of funding and recruitment principals across the working groups (IPCC 2018a, 2019b). To what extent and how this standardization will have an impact is left to be seen. What is certain at this point is that the funding of the Chapter Scientists so far has differed between the working groups, a difference that we will show also have resulted in differences in the recruitment process regarding who is seen as a relevant candidate to be included in the IPCC as a Chapter Scientist.

In WGI and WGII, the Chapter Scientists have been employed with funding from individual CLAs who, supported by the TSU, have been responsible for the recruitment process. The enrolled early-career scientists most often had previous connections to the CLA and have been situated at the same institution during their time as a Chapter Scientist. In WGIII, on the other hand, the Chapter Scientists have been enrolled on a voluntary basis, but have had their travel expenses covered by funds donated by the UK government to contribute to the creation of a broader inclusion of climate experts from developing countries. The collective funding has put the TSU in charge of administrating a collective call and the applicants had to be ‘citizens of and resident in a developing country’ (WGIII TSU 2017a). The Chapter Scientists have been situated in their home institution and are expected to allocate 30% of their time to the task during the time of the assignment. Despite these structural differences, two general criteria on who is to be seen as a relevant candidate for inclusion in the role of Chapter Scientist have been present in all three working groups to some extent. The first criterion is academic qualifications in terms of being an early-career scientist. The second criterion is the inclusion of scientists from developing countries.

4.3.1. The inclusion of early-career scientists

In all three working groups, to be considered for the role of Chapter Scientist, a candidate needs to be a trained scientist. A candidate must have an academic degree or be currently studying towards an academic degree (Ph.D. or master’s degree). The degree needs to be of relevance to the assessment. For example, to apply to SR15, a candidate needed to have a degree in the climate sciences or in a related field, and to apply to Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL), a candidate needed to have a degree in a subject related to the interface between climate change and land. Thus, a relevant candidate for inclusion in the role of Chapter Scientist is someone with qualified knowledge on the topic that IPCC is to assess. At the same time, he or she still has to be in the early stages of his or her academic career to prevent overqualification. The formal requirement of an academic degree in the climate sciences or related fields results in the inclusion of actors who contribute to the continuity between generations of the IPCC scientists and results in the exclusion of actors who would have added new knowledge perspectives.

4.3.2. The inclusion of scientists from developing countries

Based on the idea that representation is a precondition for trust and legitimacy, the geographical bias in favor of scientists from the Northern Hemisphere has created a strain on IPCC’s legitimacy over the years (Haas 2004; Lahsen 2010). To address this problem, geographical representation has been a standing item on the IPCC’s agenda and one of the IPCC’s criteria when selecting scientists to participate in IPCC’s assessments (Hughes and Paterson 2017). Similarly, these criteria were used in the selection of Chapter Scientists to AR5. However, despite these criteria, a geographical bias remains among the leading scientists (Ford, Vanderbilt, and Berrang-Ford 2012; Ford et al. 2016), and approximately 75% of the Chapter Scientists in AR5 came from a developed country (Schulte-Uebbing et al. 2015).

This problem was also prioritized by the IPCC in its internal review of AR5 and in the discussions that followed about the future of the IPCC (IPCC 2013). The review was guided by three questions. One of these questions was a question about ‘[w]ays to ensure enhancement of the participation and contribution of developing countries in the future work of the IPCC’ (IPCC 2013, 6). Among the suggestions provided on how to realize this ambition, capacity building among and enrollment of early-career scientists from developing countries were emphasized as being of great importance (IPCC, 2015b).

In WGI and WGII, the respective TSU in the sixth assessment cycle encouraged the CLAs to make the call open for anyone in the world to apply. However, despite this encouragement, the Chapter Scientists in SR15 and SROCC have mostly been recruited locally among early-career scientists with previous connections to the CLA or the CLA’s institution. In WGIII, the funds from the UK government donated to contribute to increasing the inclusion of scientists from developing countries enabled strategic calls for Chapter Scientists. Thus, the call for Chapter Scientists to the SRCCL was open only to ‘citizens of and residents in a developing country’ (WGIII TSU 2017b). This requirement resulted in the enrollment of Chapter Scientists with diverse geographical backgrounds and with no previous relations to the CLAs.

In sum, the introduction of the role of Chapter Scientist has become a means to include underrepresented groups and eliminate geographical biases with the aim to achieve the geographical representation that the organization always has been striving towards, i.e. representation from all IPCC member states at the highest level of climate science. However, as we will see in what follows, this inclusion of diversity brings very limited possibilities for additional perspectives to be included in the process. The motive of the socialization of early-career scientists through the role of Chapter Scientists is instead to forward the IPCC’s norms and practices maintaining the importance of an independent science in the next generation of the IPCC’s leading scientists.

4.3. Norms and skills being socialized

Parallel to the IPCC’s acknowledgment of the role of Chapter Scientist as an accepted practice and an important contribution to the assessment process (IPCC 2015a; 2019b), and parallel to the IPCC’s acknowledgment of the importance of capacity building among early-career scientists from developing countries (IPCC 2018a, 2018b), the IPCC stands by their declaration that ‘training and capacity building is outside of the mandate of the IPCC’ (IPCC 2015b, 6). Unlike, e.g. the IPBES,⁵ the IPCC’s mandate has been confirmed to be performing environmental assessments, not building capacity. With this statement, the IPCC also implicitly states that early-career scientists are introduced to the IPCC in the role of Chapter Scientists to contribute to the quality of the assessment, not to participate in capacity building activities. However, this position has been somewhat altered in the calls to recruit Chapter Scientists to the special reports and the AR6 (cf. IPCC 2018b). For example, in WGIII’s call for Chapter Scientist to the IPCC SRCCL (WGIII TSU 2017a), one of the objectives was said to be ‘to help build capacity’ (WGIII TSU 2017b) by ‘support[ing] the training of the next generation of assessment scientists’ (WGIII TSU 2017a).

Still, the main objective of introducing the role of Chapter Scientists is to enhance the quality of the assessment rather than to actively work to enhance the individual Chapter Scientists’ capacity or the IPCC’s capacity. This objective shape the conditions for socialization within the IPCC. By introducing the role of Chapter Scientist, the IPCC offers a space within the organization from which early-career scientists may build capacity through informal socialization by learning from assisting in the assessment process. As a WGIII TSU staffer puts it:

WGIII TSU staffer: It is not that the IPCC is putting up this big training program or anything like that; they are instead putting facilities in place for Chapter Scientists to be involved./ … /The Chapter Scientist role itself is like a capacity building exercise, but I don’t think, in a sense, it is IPCC that is doing that./ … /IPCC do the recruitment side, but then, when they are in the role, it is sort of up to them [the Chapter Scientist] in a way./ … /

Interviewer: Do I understand it correct if it is more like that you are offering an opportunity for them to embrace or not?

WGIII TSU staffer: Yes, I think so. More than saying, you know: ‘We will train you in this, and in return you get this and this’. It is more this sort of, you kind of have to get involved and see what ways they can be helpful and what ways they can assist, and I think some Chapter Scientist will always get more involved than others, and that is just a personality thing. So, people will get different things out of it,/ … /it is definitely more of an opportunity for them rather than us providing them with lots of training and skills upfront. (WGIII TSU staffer, June, 2018)

The capacity building and formal socialization that is organized by the IPCC aims to give the Chapter Scientists the capacity to carry out their responsibilities in the assessment, to introduce the early-career scientists to ‘what the report is all about’, and to educate them in specific practical aspects of the job, such as the use of reference software. For this, the TSUs offer training webinars at the beginning of the assessment processes. However, to gain capacities beyond this training, it is up to the early-career scientists themselves to engage in informal socializing experiences. Thus, the IPCC’s decision to integrate early-career scientists to build capacity is a rather open-ended initiative without any clear capacity building objectives or ways to evaluate capacity building outcomes, as exemplified by the following interview extract:

We have not specified what specific skills they are going to get out of it. More promoted that this is a fantastic opportunity if you are interested in mitigation of climate change. If this is the sort of academic career you want to go towards, then it is a great opportunity to be involved in. (WGIII TSU staffer, June, 2018)

Instead of offering a capacity building program with explicitly expected learning outcomes, the idea is that the early-career scientists will appropriate norms and skills that exist as tacit knowledge among the senior scientists in the IPCC. The role of Chapter Scientist allows for informal socialization by enabling the early-career scientists (i) to experience ‘a real eye-opener and seeing how it actually works behind the scenes’, (ii) to be a part of ‘this world where you are surrounded by all these people who are sort of at the top in the field and really experienced’, (iii) to have ‘a lot of networking opportunities’, and (iv) to be ‘in the room with these conversations in these closed meeting where other people don’t get the opportunity to come in’. Through participating in the work of the IPCC, the early-career scientists are given the opportunity to acquire (i) unique knowledge of the IPCC, (ii) an important network in the field of climate science, and (iii) enhanced knowledge on climate change that eventually could evolve into new expert knowledge and contributions to future IPCC assessments (cf. Gustafsson 2018). Thus, in the absence of formal learning outcomes, the IPCC’s socialization of early-career scientists is informally guided by the expectations that they on their one will adopt the IPCC’s norms and acquire the skills necessary to become a part of the organization.

The introduction of Chapter Scientists has developed into a combination of assuring quality today and investing in the future. The role of Chapter Scientists offers a formal space within the IPCC in which early-career scientists are prepared for participation in knowledge production along a moderate path where science is the hegemonic knowledge system. As such, the role of Chapter Scientist allows the IPCC to contribute to the empowerment of a new generation of early-career scientists from all around the world. However, the empowerment shows a narrow goal: to make the early-career scientists enhance their scientific career in line with the IPCC’s scientific ambitions (cf. Hughes and Paterson’s (2017) study on the IPCC’s importance of setting the general climate science research agenda). In the way that the role of Chapter Scientist has been introduced, the conditions for socialization have served to maintain the IPCC’s commitment to the moderate path and the position that trustworthy, credible, relevant, and legitimate knowledge assessments come from having the world’s leading scientists doing the assessments.

5. Discussion

To become an authority with an impact on policy decisions, actions, and environmental governance, the IPCC has historically relied on the trustworthiness of its leading scientists as experts in the field of climate change. Thus, key in the IPCC’s efforts to become credible, relevant, and legitimate has been to enroll the world’s leading scientists to do its assessments. The logic has then followed that the assessments will provide the leading, most prominent policy-relevant knowledge in the field. In this study, we focused on the IPCC’s decision to divert from this previous strategy and, to strengthen the IPCC’s quality control, introduce early-career scientists in the role of Chapter Scientists.

The introduction of Chapter Scientists was recommended by PBL (2010) as an action that would contribute to moving the IPCC along a more radical path of inclusion and deliberation. However, throughout the analysis, this study showed that instead of moving the IPCC along a radical path, the IPCC’s introduction of early-career scientists in the role of Chapter Scientists has settled the socialization process into a moderate path of inclusion and deliberation.

The settlement of the IPCC’s socialization process into the moderate path is primarily due to the fact that instead of intentionally using the Chapter Scientists as an answer to the question of how to create institutional change, the IPCC is using these scientists as a solution to the following challenges. First, it is using them as an answer to the question of how the world’s leading scientists should be able to continue to produce high-quality assessment reports despite the growing amount of data material and research publications. Second, it is using them as an answer to the question of how the IPCC should be able to erase its regional bias by enrolling not only world-leading scientists from some parts of the world but world-leading scientists from all over the world. Third, it is using them as an answer to the question of how to contribute to the building of capacity within the field of climate change science, especially among early-career scientists in developing countries.

As part of the IPCC, the early-career scientists are expected to protect the credibility of the organization and its assessments by learning to determine what is and what is not trustworthy scientific knowledge, i.e. what knowledge should and what knowledge should not be a part of an IPCC assessment. Trustworthy knowledge means diversity in origin, such as geographical diversity, gender diversity, and to some extent disciplinary diversity. However, diversity is restricted by the boundaries of science. Along the moderate path, trustworthy knowledge has its origin in science with a clear boundary separating it from other knowledge systems. This task of working as a gatekeeper to protect the credibility of science should be contrasted with the role aimed at socialization along a more radical path of inclusion and deliberation. In a more radically oriented socialization process, the focus would be to have the early-career scientists build capacity on how to engage in dialog with multiple actors and knowledge systems to conduct a reflexive socially situated scientific analysis.

A socialization along the moderate path results in the IPCC reproducing its current institutional rationale of what norms, skills, and knowledge are to be premiered and included as part of the organization. A socialization along the moderate path results in continuity between different generations of experts and stability within the organization. From a more radical perspective, this reproduction of the institutional rationale could be described as a lost opportunity for path-breaking institutional change. However, the institutional reproduction is in and of itself neither good nor bad. To what extent the IPCC’s reproduction of institutional structures along the moderate path is a constructive choice of action to have an impact on policy decisions and action is instead a question to be answered in a more general discussion on how and why the IPCC should become more inclusive. As part of this discussion, we can see how PBL’s (2010) initial suggestion to introduce an assisting function in the IPCC to contribute to a more radical inclusion and deliberation process represents one side of this debate and how the IPCC’s intentions of a socialization along the moderate path represent the other.

6. Conclusion

This study has shown how the introduction of the role of Chapter Scientists have taken the IPCC on a moderate path of institutional change. Due to the institutional conditions of the new role (structural, normative and practical), it has primarily contributed to a more inclusive science with regard to geographical origin. Even so, with the role of Chapter Scientist, the IPCC has opened for the inclusion of a new actor category, and change is happening. The question that remains to be empirically answered is whether allowing early-career scientists to act in multiple roles, e.g. Chapter Scientist and Contributing Author, is enough of a change to give the future IPCC a chance to have an influence on policy decisions, actions, and environmental governance or if a more radical socialization process is needed.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas [2016-00545].

Notes on contributors

Karin M. Gustafsson

Karin M. Gustafsson is an Associate Professor in Sociology, the Environmental Sociology Section, School of Humanities, Educational and Social Sciences, Örebro University. Her research primarily focuses climate change and biodiversity issues in the fields of environmental sociology, the sociology of knowledge, and science and technology studies. She is currently studying the role of science in international environmental governance and international expert organizations’ socialization of young scholars.

Monika Berg

Monika Berg is an Associate Professor in Sociology, the Environmental Sociology Section, School of Humanities, Educational and Social Sciences, Örebro University. Her main research interests are the role of knowledge in environmental governance and organizational prerequisites for sustainable transformations. Currently, she is conducting research on ethical dilemmas relating to sustainable development and how they are managed within public administration.

Notes

1. Among the Chapter Scientists working in the IPCC’s fifth assessment cycle, most of them were graduate students or had received their PhD no longer than five years ago. (Schulte-Uebbing et al. 2015).

2. WG II used the term ‘Volunteer Chapter Scientists’, while WG III used the term ‘Chapter Science Assistants’. I will follow Schulte-Uebbing et al.’s (2015) suggestion and use the collective term Chapter Scientist (CS).

3. For a summarizing table, see supplementary material.

4. All interview excerpts have been slightly revised by the interviewees with respect to language.

5. One of the objectives of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is to create capacity. In its work on this objective, the IPBES has established a fellowship program, which at the time of the IPBES 7^th plenary meeting in April 2019 had involved more than 70 early-career scientists (IPBES 2018, IPBES 2019a, 2019b).