Paper Title: Shifting Narratives: The Role of Science Slams in Climate Mobility Communication

Author(s) and Year: A.-C. Link, T.  França, M. Vandamme & T. Brenner (2025)

Journal: Science Communication (open access)

TL;DR: This study explores how Science Slams — performance-based research presentations — can influence public understanding of climate mobility by shifting audience support toward more nuanced, evidence-based narratives.

Why I chose this paper: Having done my post-graduate studies in Germany, I have attended my fair share of Science Slams — a science communication format that originated in the country — and keep encountering them as a potential career path. I don’t believe I belong on the stage, but I think the format holds promise, so I was excited to see a study addressing it.

What if science could be explained not through charts and jargon, but with humor, storytelling, and a little stage presence? As misinformation floods our social feeds and polarizing narratives dominate public discourse, the need for fresh approaches to science communication has never been greater. One topic especially in need of nuance is climate mobility — the displacement of people in response to a worsening climate. Could creative formats like the Science Slam help the public engage with this issue in a more informed and balanced way?

The Background

In Europe, discussions around climate mobility are often framed within the so-called “Fortress Europe” narrative, which leans heavily on securitization and fear of migrants entering the continent. Innovative science communication formats could help engage a wider audience in discussions about this topic while presenting it with more nuance and complexity.

One possible format is the Science Slam. Inspired by poetry slams, Science Slams were born in Germany in 2006 and have since spread to other countries. Although there is no single definition, most of these events share some common elements. For example, the participants are (usually young) scientists tasked with presenting their own original research understandably and entertainingly to a non-expert audience using any method they like within a 10-minute time limit. And they are judged for it — the audience votes on the best performance, which is typically the one deemed to strike the right balance between scientific rigor and entertainment.

In this study, the authors wanted to test how effectively a Science Slam can communicate a complex, contentious topic like climate mobility to a broader audience. Despite becoming more widespread, Science Slams are mostly popular in Germany, and remain underexplored in academic literature. 

The Methods

The study authors organized a 3-hour Science Slam at the University of Marburg as part of a collaboration between the University of Marburg, Germany, and the University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal. The event started with a description of the research project and the Science Slam format, as well as a brief introduction to the concept of climate mobility. The introduction was then followed by four English-language Science Slam contributions—two from each of the participating universities—and an audience discussion at the end. The audience, of roughly 70 people, were also given a survey that they answered in two parts: before and after the Slams.

The anonymous survey aimed to examine whether the Science Slams impacted participants’ perceptions of climate mobility. As part of the project, the authors had previously identified five distinct narratives about climate mobility, all framed from the perspective of the Global North:

• “Mass Climate Migration”: Falling under the securitization discourse, this narrative poses climate mobility as a problem by focusing on the large numbers of people leaving their home countries and entering the Global North.
• “Crisis & Threat”: Also from a securitization perspective, this narrative focuses on the differences in culture and values of the climate migrants entering the Global North, and the perceived integration problems these differences bring.
• “Victim & Humanitarian”: This narrative focuses on the vulnerability of the victims of climate change, who do not have the agency or capacity to help themselves. It frames the Global North as their saviour.
• “’Success’ Story”: This narrative shares “successful” migration and integration stories to fight the scapegoating of climate migrants.
• “Nuance & Complexity”: This narrative argues that most discussions around climate migration and displacement are too simplistic and often used out of context. Instead, it wants to show the full picture and lived experiences of human (im)mobility in the context of changes in climate and the environment. 

In the survey, the participants were asked how much they agreed or disagreed (on a scale from 0 to 10) with newspaper headlines intended to represent the different narratives. In the end, 45 survey responses could be used in the analysis.

The Results

The science slammers directly discussed the “Mass Climate Migration”, “Crisis & Threat”, and “Success Story” narratives in their presentations, and all of them indirectly addressed the “Nuance & Complexity” narrative by advocating for more nuance and complexity when talking about climate mobility. The audience’s support for all of the discussed narratives changed significantly before and after the Slams. Support for the first two narratives decreased significantly, while support for “Nuance & Complexity”, which was already the highest in the initial survey, increased even more. The “Victim & Humanitarian” narrative, which was not addressed, had the lowest support among the survey participants, both before and after the event.

The Impact 

The change in audience support of the different climate mobility narratives that were mentioned during the Science Slam suggests this format is an effective form of science communication that can lead to a more scientifically based understanding of topics like climate mobility.

However, the overall impact of the event depends not only on the quality of the material but also on who is in the audience. Even though the authors had attempted to reach other stakeholder groups, such as media representatives, policy-makers, civil society organizations, and the general public, the audience was composed exclusively of Marburg students and family members of the participating Science Slammers. 

As with many science communication measures, it’s challenging to reach groups who have opposing views on a topic or who are not already interested in the subject being discussed. Based on the researchers’ initial survey results, the Slam’s audience members all had relatively similar and progressive views on climate change and climate mobility even before the event. 

For this reason, and because the study focused on a single Science Slam with a relatively small number of participants, the authors do not consider their findings to be necessarily generalizable. However, the findings suggest that making changes such as holding events in a hybrid format or in the local language, rather than English, could attract different kinds of people to these events.

Nevertheless, Science Slams show potential as a science communication format that can influence public opinion and effectively disseminate scientific knowledge. Moreover, their engaging nature makes them a format that audiences not only appreciate but also actively enjoy, fostering a deeper connection between science and the public.

—

Written by Elena Reiriz Martínez

Edited by Diego Ramírez Martín del Campo and Krystal Vasquez

Featured image credit: Vishnu R on Pixabay