Professor Linda Steg has co-written numerous alarming reports on climate change, but in a recent interview with the Dutch Research Council, she explains why she does not choose to be an activist herself. Read the full interview (translated from Dutch) in English below. You can visit the NWO website to read it in Dutch.
“As a scientist, I am very involved in the issue of climate change, but I do not see this as a reason to become an activist. First of all, I am a psychologist, and I do research on people’s opinions and views. If I’m a prominent voice in the debate, someone may think, ‘Well I’m going to teach that lady a lesson’. Or they may think that I probably want to hear this answer. I don’t want my opinion to influence how people answer our research questions, even though this is probably mainly a problem for social science research.
Activism can also affect how people view your research. If people see you as an activist, then they may not take your outcomes seriously, which can disqualify your research in their eyes.
That being said, I don’t believe that an activist stance necessarily threatens the credibility of science. What matters is whether your activism relates to your field of research. I myself would not go to an Extinction Rebellion protest, but I can imagine that colleagues who do not do climate-related research would. And it varies by discipline; in some disciplines, activism is not likely to affect your results, such as natural science research.
Science is never completely value-free; the choice of issues you research is already value-driven. But you can design the research approach to be as value-free as possible by using scientific methods. That is what a scientist should strive for; otherwise, you are better off becoming an activist or lobbyist.
On the other hand, for a problem like climate change, there is so much evidence that it is occurring and caused by humans that it is right to draw attention to it and communicate about it.
I find that I have the freedom to choose my own research questions, even if they go against the grain. I always strive to do research that contributes to solving social problems, such as environmental pollution, and doesn’t make matters worse. Research that looks into the factors that determine whether people have strong environmental values could also be misused by someone who wants to make sure people have weak environmental values. That is an unintended effect of your research, and it’s not good for society.
I think it is important that our research is socially relevant. I think scientists have a duty to share our results, which can in turn influence policy. The line between science and activism is fluid, it’s not black and white. But that is different from prescribing what should be done or saying that a certain government minister should start implementing these policies now. Consider the IPCC’s mantra: policy-relevant, but not policy-prescriptive. It’s not my place as a scientist to also play the part of the politician. That is not consistent with our democratic principles.’
Linda Steg is a professor of environmental psychology Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. She was awarded the Stevin premium in 2020, has served as a co-author of several IPCC reports, and is currently the chair of the Strategy and Advisory Board of the Climate Research Initiative Netherlands (KIN).
