This review exposed several key areas across research domains that are lacking empirical research and understanding. These lacunas in knowledge are summarised in this section, and then grouped into a table, from which three key research objectives were developed as a basis for investigation into ACC communication. These three research objectives in turn defined the three research questions for this PhD research study.
Firstly, much published material was found on framing ACC issues in communication. However opinion is divided between a fear-based, or ‘apocalyptic’ rhetorical approach, and a more careful values-based, or deep framing approach. Non-visual research based on schools of thought on framing has also been used as justification for decisive commentary on ACC visual communication, which has opened the door for assumptions to be made where little visual theory exists. As well, the deployment of this type of strategy is not understood as sited within the graphic design domain, rather it is assumed as the domain of journalists or public communication strategists. A graphic design focus is needed to better understand approaches to ACC visual communication.
In visual theory that does exist on ACC communication, aesthetic qualities and their power to guide experience and understanding in individual responses are not well understood. Given that Bourdieu’s (1984) findings pointed to the ability of aesthetic style to trigger such emotions as disgust in viewers, and that disgust is one of the key emotive triggers for denial, investigations into the influence of aesthetic style on the emotive responses to visual artefacts must be addressed. Aesthetic style may also be a key factor in determining the positioning of the visual communication within market-based ideology, where a top-down approach may not be appropriate for either the message, or the audience that is experiencing an explosion of peer-to-peer communication. This may bear similarity to CSIRO findings that friends and family are the second most trusted source of information on climate change (Leviston et al. 2014). ACC responses tend to point towards a move away from hegemonic ideology, and careful consideration of the language of the visual may be key to ensuring reception of the communication is in line with intent.
Current thinking and empirical study has shown that one way to move viewer perception away from denial and towards ACC acceptance is to communicate the scientific consensus, shown in several content analysis studies on published papers on climate change. A key claim of the study was to provide practical advice for communicators, in that a certain type of visual is likely to be more successful than other text-based options. However the aesthetic style was not considered, neither was the visual a whole example of visual communication existing in the real world. The danger in this type of claim being made without aesthetic consideration is increased when the semantics of the terminology misrepresented the statistic (97% of climate scientists, instead of 97% of published climate papers), with the possibility of engendering a different response to a real- world artefact.
Individual experience of ACC visuals is another area that is not well understood. Much of the literature on visual communication focuses on the artefact, and does not investigate viewer reception. For example, in an era newly-defined by immediacy of digital time (Menzies 2005; Gifford 2011), where there is a disconnect between past and future as well as a disconnect with nature, the time-based approach of the two different types of apocalyptic-style rhetoric, or the values approach of deep framing may be ineffective.
Where individual experiences have been investigated, methodology has not focused on aesthetic style, considering the visual as mere representation of object, or as isolated abstract attributes that have an important but tenuous link to real world visual communication. Abstracted attribute studies also tend to focus on a set of quantitative responses as opposed to a deeper understanding of how this type of visual communication is being received by individual viewers. More in-depth studies that have been conducted are positioned in the consumer market-based domain. This may not apply to the communication of a much more contentious, complex and future-based issue. These gaps in knowledge can be summarised and grouped into eight main points as seen in Table 2.1
Table 2-1. Gaps in knowledge and corresponding research objectives.
Gaps in existing knowledge Objectives of the Study
Understandings of visual artefacts are based on isolated elements, such as colour, simple shapes or types of data visualisation
Develop a typology of existing ways in which visual communication of ACC has been presented with reference to the approaches to, and qualities of, ACC communication evident in the design. Understandings of visual artefacts based on the
image only as representation of object or concept Understandings of visual artefacts is
predominantly from a consumerist, market- based perspective
Assumptions about the graphic design domain and what artefacts it produces
Document and analyse the processes and practices employed by designers in producing these kinds of communication.
Investigation of production of ACC communication based in strategies and conceptual techniques, not on production by graphic designers
Little is known about effects of whole artefact aesthetic style on uptake of message
With the same cases, investigate the experiences and understandings of the communication from audience members.
No existing ACC visual artefact studies which examine reception by viewers
Disagreement on types of rhetorical frame most appropriate for communication of ACC
These objectives echo calls in literature for a more encompassing approach, which reflects the key gaps in literature, but also provides opportunity and potential approaches for further study:
“…There is a need for reconnecting and reintegrating the traditional, but
traditionally also relative distinct, three major foci of communication research on media and environmental issues: the production/construction of media messages and public communications; the content/messages of media communication; and the impact of media and public communication on audiences…”
(Hansen 2011, 8-9)