Co-Creation, Interpretations and Engagement with a Movement-Based Symbol for Climate Justice: A Qualitative Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The climate crisis demonstrates with complete clarity the need for massive systems-level changes towards far more sustainable societies. Global and local emissions need to decline rapidly to mitigate intensifying climate breakdown, accompanied by climate and sustainability solutions, to secure a far more stable, safe, and just future for all people and all life. Within these changes, engaging in our communities is essential to support and co-create broader solutions to help advance more sustainable societies, reduce negative impacts of a changing climate, and to move towards cultures and systems that recognize natural limits and centre care for people and planet. ‘Climate justice’ (CJ) can be seen as one powerful concept, call-to-action, and critical framing that has increased in use by many people and movements worldwide in response to the climate crisis. CJ shows promise for engaging communities in co-developing more ethical, justice-based responses to climate change that centre commitments to more environmentally conscious, climate safe societies that are also more caring and equitable. Now a globally-resonant discourse and symbol championed by many people, CJ has become a symbolic ‘signpost’ for how we “should” collectively respond as societies to the climate crisis. CJ has been linked to diverse concepts including ‘just transitions’ to more sustainable social and economic systems; culture change; the collective right to a safe climate future; historical and present responsibilities for climate change; visioning of alternative futures; acting in solidarity with and in defense of those most vulnerable to climate change impacts, including people and nature; and other related concepts. As is clear from culture theory and semiotics, symbols are a core part of shaping culture and can play a powerful role in shaping local and global cultural responses to crisis. Given the increasing use of CJ symbols in the public sphere, multiple scholars have expressed a need to better understand the potential effects of these symbols as ‘directional signposts’, including their influences on shaping culture, perceptions of CJ, and potentially motivating related CJ actions. This study addresses this gap, by investigating the impacts of a unique local phenomenon of twenty-one identical CJ signposts that have been raised by faith communities in and beyond Waterloo Region, Canada, supported by a local volunteer group Faith Climate Justice Waterloo Region (FCJWR). Through a process of engaging key informants in semi-structured interviews, this study explores the novel phenomenon of local organizers co-creating a CJ signpost, then raised by local faith communities on different places of faith – and the resulting interpretations, meanings, reflections, and responses to this signpost that were shared. Novel insights include exploring how specific value communities engage with CJ symbols; the importance of process to effective CJ symbol co-creation; interpretations and perceived impacts of the CJ symbol; and anticipated ‘next steps’ for engagement, among others. Lastly, this study takes a uniquely interdisciplinary approach to connect diverse bodies of knowledge, with significant implications for theory, research, and practice of climate justice communication across different contexts and scales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".