{"id":4136,"date":"2020-02-04T17:27:46","date_gmt":"2020-02-04T17:27:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/?p=4136"},"modified":"2020-02-04T17:43:43","modified_gmt":"2020-02-04T17:43:43","slug":"its-2020-and-time-to-celebrate-and-protect-academic-climate-advocacy-for-evidence-and-facts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/2020\/02\/04\/its-2020-and-time-to-celebrate-and-protect-academic-climate-advocacy-for-evidence-and-facts\/","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s 2020, and Time To Celebrate (and Protect) Academic Climate Advocacy for Evidence and Facts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/sign3.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4146\" width=\"680\" height=\"380\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/sign3.jpg 680w, https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/sign3-300x168.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>by Maxwell Boykoff<br>Director, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research and Associate Professor, Environmental Studies Program, University of Colorado Boulder<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"CSTPR White Paper 2020-01 (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/sciencepolicy.colorado.edu\/admin\/publication_files\/white_papers\/2020.01.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">CSTPR White Paper 2020-01<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Introduction (to a Fraught Situation)<\/strong><br>\u2018Advocacy\u2019 in academia has unfortunately become a dirty word in many quarters. It can be unsettling for numerous reasons: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>precarity of one\u2019s academic research position <\/li><li>susceptibility of one\u2019s institution to funding pressures<\/li><li>a feeling of inundation already in one\u2019s job by the time-pressures involved in other aspects of their roles as researchers<\/li><li>reticence to take on new and extra tasks in an already busy professional (and personal) life<\/li><li>fear of risking one\u2019s individual or institutional scientific credibility<\/li><li>reluctance to pull time and energy from one\u2019s core passions of research (in a time limited environment)<\/li><li>discomfort with potential peer or public backlash<\/li><li>acknowledgement that one simply is not a good communicator of one\u2019s research (and possibly their teaching)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignright size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_callout1.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4137\" width=\"225\" height=\"189\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>These complexities are real and must be taken into account. Frankly, engagement construed as \u2018advocacy\u2019 clearly is not for everyone, especially in the highly contentious and highly politicized United States (US) arena. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As a result, in 2020 we find that many consequently choose to avoid the treacherous waters of advocacy, broadly construed, for fear of undertow. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, individual and institutional choices have consequences. In a 21<sup>st<\/sup> century communications environment, it is important to understand that those who feel their work is done once they have done the field research, and have written up and published their findings are actually those trapped in a 20<sup>th<\/sup> century mindset. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It\ncan be soothing and comfortable to take that view. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But as a result of views and (in)actions like these, there has emerged an \u2018engagement gap\u2019 where many relevant expert researchers choose to \u2018self-silence\u2019 rather than speak out on critical issues they know a great deal about (Lewandowsky et al, 2015). And at times when academic researchers do speak out, there can be a tendency to actually underplay threats so as to avoid appearing alarmist or extreme. Keynyn Brysse, Naomi Oreskes, Jessica O\u2019Reilly and Michael Oppenheimer have called this \u2018erring on the side of least drama\u2019 (Brysse et al, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignright size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_callout2.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4138\" width=\"225\" height=\"198\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>However, in 2020 I argue that <em>more<\/em> substantive engagement and \u2018advocacy\u2019 is needed among many of us academic researchers so that the scale of the climate challenges are met with some semblance of a commensurate response. Academic researchers are on solid ground when advocating for facts, evidence and truth(s) and allowing this to be conflated with advocacy for specific policies or getting involved in \u2018impure\u2019 activities is damaging to our ongoing efforts over the medium-to-long-term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Perhaps we needn\u2019t worry as much \u2013 as individuals, as institutions \u2013 that we tend to do. In fact, John Kotcher and colleagues found that \u201cClimate scientists can safely engage in public dialogue about policy matters\u201d\u2026\u201cand in certain forms of advocacy without directly harming their credibility or the credibility of the scientific community\u201d (2017, 9) and \u201cClimate scientists advocating for action broadly may not harm their credibility\u201d (2017, 12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What is academic climate advocacy?<\/strong><br>Some of the reticence I describe stems from a substantial amount of confusion and conflation within the academic community about different points of entry into this world of \u2018advocacy\u2019. Mixed in here are also ingredients about what may be the \u2018right\u2019 or \u2018appropriate\u2019 place for academic researchers to enter these worlds. What results is often anxiety about how to navigate these often high-profile, high-stakes and highly-politicized spaces of engagement at the science-policy interface and in the public sphere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In a book I recently wrote called <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/books\/creative-climate-communications\/A3A15CBA3D371AD22674E3A3CB34CBFA\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"\u2018Creative (Climate) Communications: Productive Pathways for Science, Policy and Society\u2019 (opens in a new tab)\">\u2018Creative (Climate) Communications: Productive Pathways for Science, Policy and Society\u2019<\/a> (2019), I worked to clarify and cleave nodes of advocacy across a spectrum, as I mapped out a basic taxonomy of academic advocacy through the case study of climate change science, policy and cultural action. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In\nthe book I sought to recapture solid ground on which researchers can then stand\non when considering their varied involvement in the public sphere. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Type 0 advocacy<\/strong>\n= those who choose to stay away from any semblance of advocacy, due to\nconfusion and conflation of perceptions of academic advocacy in the public\nsphere; this appearance of inaction is in fact a choice or action<\/li><li><strong>Type I advocacy<\/strong>\n= advocacy for (scientific) evidence, facts and truth: this approach also\nadvocates for the intersecting ways in which experiential, emotional, and\naesthetic information informs scientific ways of knowing about climate change<\/li><li><strong>Type II advocacy<\/strong>\n= advocacy for policy outcomes: this approach promotes particular decisions (e.g.\nenvironmental policies or legislation) based on evidence ascertained its\nvarious forms to know about climate change; one strain of this type of advocacy\nmay then involve advocacy for particular political parties that advance\npreferred policies <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These\ntypes of advocacy are not meant to be interpreted as a binary or blunt\ninterpretations of varied stakes and contexts (across time and places). Rather,\nthese represent distinct nodes across a spectrum of chosen engagements. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignright size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_callout3.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4139\" width=\"225\" height=\"135\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>Through defining these nodes across a spectrum, I do <em>not<\/em> suggest that academic researchers will slot statically into one node or the other. There is dynamism in these flavors of engagement across issues and over time, along with a range from low- to high-stakes situations, all possibly experienced by the same academic researcher. Moreover, this is not just about frequency of advocacy but <em>efficacy<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Understanding this spectrum can help to strengthen rather than tarnish the reputation of science through politically-relevant advocacy and activism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There\nare many contemporary examples of ways in which individuals and institutions\ngrapple with whether or how to engage in advocacy. As one example, we can\nconsider the \u2018Marches for Science\u2019 that have taken place in recent years. To\ndate, these marches have been a coordinated set of rallies held near Earth Day\n(April 22). These were first organized amid a backdrop of increased\nmobilizations in the US and around the world (like the January 2017 \u2018Women\u2019s\nMarch\u2019). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Other satellite events have included a \u2018Rally to Stand Up for Science\u2019 outside the 2017 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting. Climate researchers who participated in these marches for science took \u2018steps\u2019 from talk to action. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignright size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_callout4.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4140\" width=\"225\" height=\"318\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_callout4.jpg 300w, https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_callout4-212x300.jpg 212w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 225px) 100vw, 225px\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>These were marches not organized for a specific cause or policy, but for advocacy for the integrity of scientific inquiry. At the 2018 March for Science, journalist Suan Svrluga from the <em>Washington Post<\/em> reported, \u201cA few people chanted \u201cScience is real. It\u2019s not how you feel,\u201d beating a tempo on buckets, but mostly the mass of people marched through Washington quietly Saturday, letting their homemade signs show their support for empirical research\u201d (Svrluga, 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Many signs declared the need for facts, evidence and truth from science to inform policy (Figure 1). Survey work on the marches and marchers found that 89% marched because they wanted more evidence in policy decisions (Myers et al, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But other academic researchers found themselves uncomfortable participating or chose not to participate at all due to the reasons stated at the outset of this piece, and due to a sense of unclear demarcations between advocacy for scientific-evidence, or advocacy for particular policies or even advocacy against US President Donald J. Trump. In fact at the marches, calls for a return to evidence-based policymaking and funding for scientific research moved at times from general statement and signs to explicit linkages to the Trump administration\u2019s suppression and side lining of science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Because of this slippage in the public view, critiques then poured in from many different perspectives. For examples, sociologist Robert Brulle argued that by placing climate scientists as leading spokespeople for climate change action, \u201cit fed into and exacerbated the existing polarized divide\u201d rather than bridging it (2018, p. 3). Meanwhile, physicist Jim Gates opined that \u201csuch a politically-charged event might send a message to the public that scientists are driven by ideology more than by evidence\u201d (Flam, 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_figure1.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4151\" width=\"680\" height=\"425\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_figure1.jpg 680w, https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_figure1-300x188.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What have we learned so far?<\/strong><br>My recent book catalogued relevant social science and humanities scholarship to better understand which creative climate communications work where, when, why and under what conditions and audiences. The focus on advocacy (in Chapter 6) sought to clarify, provoke and inspire productive deliberations on how one might navigate these fears and challenges associated with advocacy at the science-policy interface and in the public arena. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignright size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_callout5.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4142\" width=\"225\" height=\"173\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>The book profiled work from scholars like Shahzeen Attari, Naomi Oreskes, John Kotcher, Elke Weber, John Besley, Declan Fahy, Matt Nisbet, and Lydia Messling, who are conducting research to more systematically understand intersections of expertise, public intellectualism and advocacy. For instance, Shahzeen Attari and colleagues who examined personal choices by use of public transportation (not intentions to fly or home energy conservation) and found that \u201cdifferences in perceived credibility strongly affect participants\u2019 reported intentions to change personal energy consumption\u201d (2016, 325). In the book, I also drew on research that I have undertaken with David Oonk (2018). <strong>Together, these scholars and their research provide important insights into academic climate advocacy in 2020 and beyond.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Again, it is understandable if academic researchers do not desire to be type I advocates. However, as academic researchers it is vitally important that we do not lose the term advocacy altogether. In this 21<sup>st<\/sup> century milieu of \u2018post-truth\u2019 and \u2018fake news\u2019, when we in the academic arena (as well as in others) surrender advocacy altogether, we surrender advocacy for facts, advocacy for truth, and advocacy for evidence as well. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There are consequential and often deleterious impacts when relevant experts do not step up. Unfortunately, this predicament around perceptions of academic advocacy has emerged at a time when involvement is sorely needed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In February 2018, the Editors of Scientific American penned an opinion piece entitled \u2018Go Public or Perish\u2019. In it, they made the observation that \u201cif citizens never hear from legitimate experts, no one can blame them for indifference to fake-science tweets, decisions by politicians that ignore facts, or cuts to federal agencies that are supposed to be built on sound science\u201d (2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignright size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_callout6.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4143\" width=\"225\" height=\"143\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Conclusion (to an Ongoing Story)<\/strong><br>As climate change cuts to the heart of how we live, work, play and relax in modern life, engagement through research and through communications entail reflection on how our personal lives mesh with our professional ones. <strong>\u2018Advocacy\u2019 is in fact humanizing<\/strong>, and setting (positive) examples do matter. And members of academic communities have engaged various forms of engagement relating to their research every day. <strong>Some engage in advocacy in part because they view engagement as part of their responsibility as contemporary climate researchers. Others have engaged because they seek to shift and\/or elevate the quality of public conversations.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Exemplification\ntheory suggests that concrete cases of influential actors grappling with issues\nlike climate change can significantly influence citizens\u2019 awareness and\ninclination to act themselves (Gibson and Zillman, 1994). This is the case\nbecause such exertions have been found to lower the psychological barriers to\nengagement (Zillman, 2006). Pro-environmental and pro-social behavioral\nengagement though inspirational leadership has been evidenced in numerous\nstudies (e.g. Maki et al 2019; Lin, 2013). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Since\nI wrote the book, another research contribution from Gregg Sparkman and\nShahzeen Attari gives the imperfect ones among us some encouragement too.\nDetecting possible &#8216;greener than\nthou&#8217; blowback (in other words getting some resistance by acting too perfect or\nextreme), they found that \u201cadvocates, especially experts, are most credible and\ninfluential when they adopt many sustainable behaviors in their day-to-day\nlives, so long as they are not seen as too extreme\u201d (Sparkman and Attari, 2020,\np. 6).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Today, we are forced to navigate these challenges in choppy waters of climate discourse in the public sphere (Figure 2). There is no particularly \u2018easy sailing\u2019 here. However, informed choices (based on social sciences and humanities scholarship and examples in practice that I profile here and in my book), a more clear understanding along with mindful partnerships and collaborations can overcome many of these vulnerabilities and concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_figure2.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4152\" width=\"680\" height=\"425\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_figure2.jpg 680w, https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2020\/02\/2020.01_figure2-300x188.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>When those recoiling from spaces of advocacy for evidence-based climate research are the relevant experts who hold insights for useful and informed commentary, I ultimately argue that they should be viewed as missed opportunities to attend to their present-day responsibilities of meeting people where they are on climate change. Put simply, we must instead normalize, celebrate and protect advocacy for evidence, truth and facts in our shared 21<sup>st<\/sup> century encounters at the human-environment interface.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>References <\/strong><br>Attari, S. Z., Krantz, D. H., and Weber, E. U. (2016). Statements about climate researchers\u2019 carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice. <em>Climatic Change<\/em>, 138(1-2), pp. 325-338.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Boykoff,\nM. (2019) <em>Creative (Climate)\nCommunications: Productive Pathways for Science, Policy and Society<\/em>\nCambridge University Press<em>. <\/em>ISBN\n9781316646823. 302 pp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Boykoff,\nM. and Oonk, D. (2018) Evaluating the perils and promises of\nacademic climate advocacy <em>Climatic Change <\/em>10.1007\/s10584-018-2339-3<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Brulle,\nR.J. (2018). Critical reflections on the march for science. <em>Sociological Forum<\/em>, 33:1, pp. 255-258.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Brysse,\nK., Oreskes, N., O\u2019Reilly, J. and Oppenheimer, M. (2013). Climate change\nprediction: Erring on the side of least drama? <em>Global environmental change<\/em>, 23(1), pp. 327-337.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Flam,\nFaye. (2017). Why Some Scientists Won\u2019t March for Science. <em>Bloomberg<\/em>. 7 March. Available at: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/view\/articles\/2017-03-07\/why-some-scientists-won-t-march-for-science\">https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/view\/articles\/2017-03-07\/why-some-scientists-won-t-march-for-science<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Gibson,\nR., and Zillmann, D. (1994). Exaggerated versus representative exemplification\nin news reports \u2013 perceptions of issues and personal consequences<em>. Communication Research<\/em>, 21: pp.\n603\u2013624.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Kotcher,\nJ. E., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., et al. (2017). Does engagement in advocacy\nhurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey\nexperiment. <em>Environmental Communication<\/em>,\n11(3), pp. 415-429.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Lin, S.J.\n(2013). Perceived impact of a documentary film: An investigation of the\nfirst-person effect and its implications for environmental issues. <em>Science Communication<\/em>, 35(6), pp.\n708-733.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Maki, A.,\nCarrico, A.R., Raimi, K.T., Truelove, H.B., Araujo, B. and Yeung, K.L., 2019.\nMeta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover. <em>Nature Sustainability<\/em>, 2(4), p.307.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Myers,\nT., Kotcher, J., Cook, J., et al. (2018). <em>March\nfor Science 2017: A Survey of Participants and Followers<\/em>. George Mason\nUniversity, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Scientific\nAmerican Editors. (2018). Go Public or Perish. <em>Scientific American<\/em>, February.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Sparkman,\nG. and Attari, S.Z., (2020). Credibility, communication, and climate change:\nHow lifestyle inconsistency and do-gooder derogation impact decarbonization\nadvocacy. <em>Energy Research &amp; Social\nScience<\/em>, 59, 1-7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Svrluga,\nS. (2018). Washington celebrates a day for marching and remembering. <em>Washington Post<\/em>. 14 April. Available\nat:&nbsp; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/local\/march-for-science-returns-to-the-district-on-saturday-for-a-second-year\/2018\/04\/13\/40113f00-3f23-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.9ede5ba31550\">https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/local\/march-for-science-returns-to-the-district-on-saturday-for-a-second-year\/2018\/04\/13\/40113f00-3f23-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.9ede5ba31550<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Zillmann,\nD. (2006). Exemplification effects in the promotion of safety and health. <em>Journal of Communication<\/em>, 56, pp.\nS221\u2013S237.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by Maxwell BoykoffDirector, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research and Associate Professor, Environmental Studies Program, University of Colorado Boulder CSTPR White Paper 2020-01 Introduction (to a Fraught Situation)\u2018Advocacy\u2019 in academia has unfortunately become a dirty word in many quarters. &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/2020\/02\/04\/its-2020-and-time-to-celebrate-and-protect-academic-climate-advocacy-for-evidence-and-facts\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4136","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentaries"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-07-04 23:48:54","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category"},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4136","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4136"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4136\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4159,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4136\/revisions\/4159"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4136"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4136"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4136"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}