Today, September 8th, marks International Literacy Day with the theme “Promoting literacy in the digital era”, so it’s a moment to pause and consider the multifaceted nature of literacy. Beyond the foundational ability to read and write, literacy encompasses the capacity to comprehend, evaluate, and apply information within various contexts. It is this broader understanding of literacy that brings us to a crucial yet overlooked dimension of the climate crisis: Is the inadequacy of our climate change response entangled with a global literacy deficit, especially in relation to how scientific knowledge is transmitted and interpreted?
For far too long, the scientific community has operated under the implicit assumption that the sheer volume and robustness of our data would, by their own merit, compel action. We have diligently researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and consistently published escalating warnings in journals. books, and other platforms (both in print and digitally). Yet, despite this monumental effort and the undeniable urgency, the global response seems to be somewhat consistently lethargic, fragmented, and insufficient. This chasm between scientific consensus and public engagement (or rather, public empowerment) points to a significant flaw in our traditional model of science communication, a model I am referring to here as data-dumping.
The deficiencies of data-dumping in an era of existential threat
The data-dumping approach is characterized by a unidirectional flow of information: from expert to ‘layperson.’ It assumes that providing a torrent of facts, figures, and complex models will automatically translate into comprehension, acceptance, and therefore, action. This model, while born of good intentions, overlooks several significant sociological, cultural, and psychological realities that impede genuine understanding and engagement:
Firstly, contextual relevance is key. A nuanced study on ocean acidification presented at an international conference, however groundbreaking, holds little to no immediate practical meaning for a subsistence fishing community facing dwindling catches. Their lived experience is already providing data; what they lack is the literacy to connect their observations with broader scientific explanations and, more importantly, the actionable insights derived from that connection.
Secondly, trust and relatability are not innate; they are built. In many communities, top-down directives or information from external experts can be met with skepticism, especially if those experts have no prior relationship or understanding of local knowledge systems. The language of science itself, laden with jargon and devoid of personal narrative, can unintentionally create barriers and end up creating a sense of alienation rather than inclusion. This becomes a form of literacy barrier, where the language of the discourse itself is unintelligible or disengaging, even to otherwise literate people.
And last but not least, the traditional formats of scientific dissemination are fundamentally exclusionary. Let’s take peer-reviewed journals, for instance, or academic conferences, or dense policy reports, which are simply not designed for broad public consumption. Expecting communities to assimilate this information without significant translation and contextualisation is to ignore the diverse learning styles, communication preferences, and literacy levels that exist globally. The way to do better? Perhaps it is time to start rethinking how and with whom knowledge is generated and shared.
From data-dumping to co-creation: Global success stories in bridging the gap
This World Literacy Day, we must re-evaluate our role as scientists and communicators. The urgent imperatives of the climate crisis demand a paradigm shift from unilateral data dissemination to genuinely co-creating knowledge with communities. This approach recognises that people are not just passive recipients of scientific wisdom, but rather active holders of invaluable local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge, one that is often relevant to climate adaptation and mitigation. When we embrace co-creation, we are not necessarily diluting science as some may fear; we are, in fact, enriching it, grounding it, and making it more relatable and therefore more effective.
Consider the powerful example of the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) in African countries. Think of Malawi as an example, a country whose agricultural sector is vulnerable to erratic rainfall and prolonged droughts, which can devastate crop yields and food security. The GFCS initiative in Malawi, supported by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), has worked to co-develop and disseminate climate services specifically for farmers. This is an improvement over the traditional approach of simply issuing meteorological forecasts from a distance. The initiative involves meteorologists, agricultural extension workers, and local communities, creating a participatory approach where information is not just given, but also co-created and understood. Instead of abstract probabilities, climate information is tailored to local crop cycles, such as maize and cassava, which are staples in Malawi. This involves translating scientific forecasts into practical advice on topics like planting dates and the selection of drought-resistant crops. The use of various communication channels, including radio programs, community meetings, and mobile phone alerts, ensures that the information reaches a wide audience in a timely and accessible manner. This collaborative approach has led to a significant increase in climate literacy among farmers. They are now better equipped to make informed decisions that improve their resilience to climate variability and change.
Another compelling illustration comes from Indigenous communities in the Arctic. For generations, Inuit and other Indigenous peoples have possessed an intricate understanding of sea ice, weather patterns, and wildlife behavior – knowledge honed over millennia. As the Arctic warms at an unprecedented rate, this traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is proving indispensable. Instead of Western scientists solely dictating research agendas or observing from afar, there are growing collaborations where scientists work alongside Indigenous elders and hunters. Projects like the Inuit-led community-based monitoring of ice conditions leverage local expertise to gather data, combining scientific instrumentation with traditional observation methods and terminology. This co-created knowledge is not only more robust and accurate for local conditions but also empowers communities to develop culturally appropriate adaptation strategies and communicate critical safety information within their own terms, thereby strengthening their resilience and self-determination in the face of rapid environmental change. Here, “literacy” extends beyond written text to encompass intergenerational knowledge transfer and the capacity to integrate diverse forms of understanding.
In the Philippines, a nation highly vulnerable to typhoons and sea-level rise, the PDRRN (Partnership of Philippine Duwag Disaster Risk Reduction Networks) has championed a grassroots approach to disaster risk reduction. They don’t just deliver warnings; they facilitate community-led vulnerability assessments, where residents map out their own risks and resources using simple tools. Local knowledge of safe evacuation routes, accessible shelters, and community support systems is integrated with scientific data on storm surges and flood risks. This process is about building a shared understanding of risk, enhancing local decision-making power, and co-creating locally relevant action plans. The literacy here is collective: the ability of an entire community to read their environment, understand scientific threats, and collectively write their own resilience narrative.
Final reflections
These examples show us that democratising knowledge is not merely an ethical imperative but a pragmatic necessity. It recognises that expertise is not confined to academic institutions but resides within communities themselves. When we shift from unilateral data-dumping to collaborative knowledge co-creation, we empower people to become active participants in solving the climate crisis. On this World Literacy Day, I urge you to think more about the impact of your publications: are they simply meant to increase that h-index? Or do you want to have real-life change that goes beyond the walls of academia and conferences?
If you want to explore how your can communicate your research to non-expert audience, you can check our science communication training series, or contact our Project Manager, Simon Clark, for webinar ideas you may have by emailing them at projects@egu.eu.
