THE LANGUAGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL BY KATELIN DOW

RESEARCH QUESTION:

HOW DOES THE LANGUAGE WE USE INFLUENCE OUR INTERACTIONS WITH THE TOPIC OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY?

INTRODUCTION

What word would you use to describe your favorite person? What is one word you would use to describe a person you would say is far from your favorite? Chances are those words are not the same and may even be antonyms of one another. That is because the language we use daily is impactful and helps us to demonstrate what we find meaningful. Though rhetoric has developed and changed as technology allows for different forms of communication, the heart of it is the same; rhetoric is the way we share our interpretations of the world around us (Salieva, 2023). That is all to say, language matters; I would like to invite you to evaluate the rhetoric we use in reference to sustainability. More specifically, how does language influence people’s willingness to interact with the topic of environmental sustainability?

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

To create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations.

(EPA, 2023)

BACKGROUND

When I think about the discourse around sustainability, I think about talk of a technology forward, carbon neutral future; I think of the extensive and exclusive use of scientific terminology, curating pictures in my head such as the first one to the right of this text. However, when I think about what sustainability means to myself, I think of simply a future that has some semblance of the nature I grew up enjoying. I grew up in northern Michigan with lakes on every side of me and lively nature trails always within arm's reach; this is my basis for my beginning interest in the topic of sustainability. When advocating for an environmentally sustainable future everyone brings their own unique perspectives and values that contribute to their efforts, however, it seems that these unscientific bases for advocacy rarely get acknowledged as legitimate. Why is this? Would efforts of sustainability benefit by incorporating different types of language? Let us turn to the current discourse surrounding sustainability for more insight.

BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW:

The rhetoric of sustainability being restrained to simply matters of scientific data and facts restricts multi-dimensional thinking (Jickling, 2001). Author Bob Jickling compares the exclusive evaluation of matters of sustainability through this lens to a digital watch. The only information that a digital watch gives you is what time it is, unlike a traditional watch, it does not give you information as to how many minutes there is until the next hour or how much time has elapsed since you last checked. Allowing the discourse of sustainability to range from issues of morality to concerns of science will allow for richer evaluation and more thoughtful discussion on what sustainability ought to look like; it would give us a look at the entire face of the clock. D.R.E. Cotton and others reinforce this idea that the term sustainability itself is limited and adds that this is especially true as language continues to evolve, and its political relevance becomes greater (Cotton et al, 2007; Kuhlman et al, 2010). In short, complex issues require complex analysis and when our language is limited so too is our thinking.

Another example to speak to the importance of the evaluation of rhetoric related to sustainability is in reference to consumption. Consumption, as demonstrated by Richard Wilk in the article Consumption embedded in culture and language: implications for finding sustainability, is frequently evaluated through metaphors. These metaphors often compare consumption to a visceral feeling such as hunger symbolizing gluttony and destruction. This way of framing consumption, though one could argue accurate, does not consider the nuances of why people consume the way they do and how engrained consumption is in American society (Wilk, 2010). Consumption is a large driver of environmental degradation; with the use of scientific data, we can observe the environmental impacts of consumption however, without the evaluation of the social drivers of consumption, observable within rhetoric used, the attempts to solve the issue will fall short.

RESEARCH METHODS AND OBJECTIVES

This would be a mixed methods study, utilizing both interviews and surveys, with the end goal of identifying if language plays a role in peoples' perceptions of, and efforts towards, environmental sustainability.

SURVEY

The survey would be distributed online and would be available to anyone who would like to participate. This would allow for a broader array of people to participate in the study. Participants may be asked some basic questions regarding their age and gender identity to give an idea as to what perspectives are being represented within the data. The survey would include 15 statements: 6 of which phrased using scientific based language in reference to sustainability, 6 of which using emotionally based language in reference to sustainability, and 3 random statements unrelated to sustainability. For each statement surveyors would choose a number on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating how effective they thought each statement would be to get people interested or involved in efforts of environmental sustainability. On this scale 1 is extremely ineffective and 5 is extremely effective. The survey will be open over the duration of three to six months based off engagement, but results will not be available until after the survey is closed to ensure the data is not skewed. The ratings will be pulled from the 12 survey questions relating to sustainability, and evaluated to see which type of language used was more effective based on the average ratings. The ratings of the 3 extra questions that did not relate to sustainability will be used as an indicator for a potential baseline for the other data, because, in thought, they should be rated extremely ineffective as they are not related to sustainability.

INTERVIEW

For the interview, the aim would be to talk in person to around 5 participants with varying familiarities and dispositions to sustainability. There would be 3 interviews for each participant conducted over 9 weeks. With the study conducted over nine weeks, it allows enough time that participants will most likely not be able to recall their exact answers from previous interviews; however, it is also a somewhat short duration to ensure that the process could be repeated if findings from the first trial are insignificant. For each interview set, the questions asked will hold the same meaning though the language will differ. The first interview will consist of questions that use more scientific language and incorporate statistics in reference to sustainability. The second interview will consist of questions using more emotion based and impassioned language rather than strictly scientific language. Lastly, the third interview will incorporate reused questions from both the first and second interviews to evaluate if the answers stay consistent with how participants answered in the previous interviews. After the interviews are conducted, the participants' answers will be evaluated by a team of two people to identify keywords and patterns within the answers, to see which type of language seemed to be the most engaging when taking about sustainability. Two people will review the data to ensure that there is not disconnect between interpretations of answers. There is a chance that participants familiarity with sustainability may alter during the period between interviews and impact their answers to interview questions, however, the goal of the third interview is to ensure that there is some consistency among the answers to the reoccurring interview questions.

COMMONALITIES AMONG THE METHODS

Before participants begin either the survey or the interview, they will be informed on what environmental sustainability means in the sense of which we are discussing it. Sustainability within the context of this research project will correspond to the way it is defined by the EPA which is “to create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations,” (EPA, 2023). This definition is accessible yet not limited, as nuances could be presented as some may interpret the idea of harmony in different ways.

WHY MIXED METHODS?

These methods will be effective for this study because language is somewhat subjective, therefore interviews will allow for flexibility within answers to give a better indication of true patterns in response to different types of language used. Additionally, surveys will provide data that can be obtained in a larger quantity and then can be quantified to further demonstrate statistical patterns (Denny et al, 2024). This will allow for a well-rounded study that will attempt to match the complexity of the discourse being studied.

References

Cotton, D. R. E., Warren, M. F., Maiboroda, O., & Bailey, I. (2007). Sustainable development, higher education and pedagogy: a study of lecturers' beliefs and attitudes, Environmental Education Research, 13(5), 579-597, DOI: 10.1080/13504620701659061.

D’Souza, C., Brahme, M., & Babu, M. S. (2020). Environment Education in Indian Schools: The Search for a New Language. Journal of education for sustainable development, 14(2), 174-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408220978845

Denny, M., & Clark, L. (2024). How to Analyze Data in a Primary Research Study, Writing Spaces 4, 86-97.

EPA. (2023). https://www.epa.gov/sustainability/learn-about-sustainability.

Fouke, D. C. (2012). Blameworthy environmental beliefs. Environmental Ethics, 34(2), 115 –134.

Kuhlman, T., & Farrington, J. 2010. What is Sustainability? Sustainability 2(11): 3436-3448. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2113436.

Killingsworth, M. & Palmer, J. (2012). Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America. Southern Illinois University Press.

Jickling, B (2001). Environmental Thought, the Language of Sustainability, and Digital

Watches. Environmental Education Research, 7(2), 167-180.

Salieva, L. (2023). New Media Environment, Challenges of Modern Education, and the Old Art of Rhetoric. ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, 80(2), 288–301.

Wilk R. (2010). Consumption embedded in culture and language: implications for finding sustainability. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 6(2), 38-48.