A
research paper concluding that climate-induced collapse is now
inevitable, was recently rejected by anonymous reviewers of an
academic journal.
It
has been released directly by the Professor who wrote it, to promote
discussion of the necessary deep adaptation to climate chaos.
Emotional support in face of climate tragedy
The
study on collapse they thought you should not read – yet
26
July, 2018
Posted
by jembendell on July 26, 2018
A
research paper concluding that climate-induced collapse is now
inevitable, was recently rejected by anonymous reviewers of an
academic journal.
It
has been released directly by the Professor who wrote it, to promote
discussion of the necessary deep adaptation to climate chaos.
“I
am releasing this paper immediately, directly, because I can’t wait
any longer in exploring how to learn the implications of the social
collapse we now face,” explained the author Dr Bendell, a full
Professor of Sustainability Leadership. deep adaptation paper
In
saying the paper was not suitable for publication, one of the
comments from the reviewers questioned the emotional impact that the
paper might have on readers. “I was left wondering about the social
implications of presenting a scenario for the future as inevitable
reality, and about the responsibility of research in communicating
climate change scenarios and strategies for adaptation.” wrote one
of the reviewers. “As the authors pointed out, denial is a common
emotional response to situations that are perceived as threatening
and inescapable, leading to a sense of helplessness, inadequacy, and
hopelessness and ultimately disengagement from the issue…”
That
perspective is discussed in the paper as one that enables denial.
Professor Bendell explains in his response to the Editor, that the
response may reflect “the self-defeating hierarchical attitude
towards society that many of us have in both academia and
sustainability, where we censure our own exploration of a topic due
to what we consider should or should not be communicated. There is
both scholarship and experience on the impact of communicating about
disaster, and I discuss that in the paper.” Moreover, Bendell
consulted with practicing psychotherapists on both the motivational
and mental health implications of this analysis and was reassured
that perceptions of a collective tragic future should not in itself
be a cause for depression. Instead, it could trigger transformative
reflection which could be supported – and would be inevitable one
day, given the inevitability of mortality for all human life.
The
paper offers a new framing for beginning to make sense of the
disaster we face, called “deep adaptation.” It is one that
Professor Bendell proposed in a keynote lecture two years ago and has
influenced community dialogue on climate change in Britain in the
past two years, including in Peterborough and Newcastle as well as
being used by the Dark Mountain network.
The
paper “Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy” is
downloadable as a pdf from HERE .
The
response of Professor Bendell to the Editor of the journal follows
below.
A
list of resources to support people as they process this information,
including emotional support is here.
Letter
to the Editor of SAMPJ, Professor Carol Adams, from Professor Jem
Bendell, 26th July 2018.
Dear
Professor Adams,
It
is an odd situation to be in as a writer, but I feel compassion for
anyone reading my Deep Adaptation article on the inevitability of
near term social collapse due to climate chaos! I am especially
grateful for anyone taking the time to analyse it in depth and
provide feedback. So, I am grateful to you arranging that and the
reviewers for providing their feedback. Some of the feedback,
particularly recommendations for a better introduction, were helpful.
However, I am unable to work with their main requests for revisions,
as they are, I believe, either impossible or inappropriate, as I will
seek to explain.
I
agree with Professor Rob Gray that “The journal’s constant
exploration of new and challenging perspectives on how accountability
and sustainability might play out in organisations ensures a
stimulating source of articles, experiences and ideas.” It is why I
was pleased to guest edit an issue last year and bring critical
perspectives on leadership to its readership. However, the topic of
inevitable collapse from climate change is so challenging it is not
surprising it didn’t find support from the anonymous peer
reviewers.
I
would have had difficulty finding motivation for undertaking a
complete re-write given the conclusion of the paper – that the
premise of the “sustainable business” field that the journal is
part of is no longer valid. Indeed, the assumptions about progress
and stability that lead us to stay in academia in the field of
management studies are also now under question.
The
first referee questioned “to which literature (s) does this article
actually contribute” and stated that “the research question or
gap that you intend to address must be drawn from the literature,”
continuing that “to join the conversation, you need to be aware of
the current conversation in the field, which can be identified by
reviewing relevant and recent articles published in these journals.”
That is the standard guidance I use with my students and it was both
amusing and annoying to read that feedback after having dozens of
peer reviewed articles published over the last 20 years. The problem
with that guidance is when the article is challenging the basis of
the field and where there are not any other articles exploring or
accepting the same premise. For instance, there are no articles in
either SAMPJ or Organisation and Environment that explore
implications for business practice or policy of a near term
inevitable collapse due to environmental catastrophe (including those
that mention or address climate adaptation). That isn’t surprising,
because the data hasn’t been so conclusive on that until the last
couple of years.
It
is surprising therefore that the first reviewer says “the paper
does not contain any new or significant information. The paper
reiterates what has already been told by many studies.” The
reviewer implies therefore that the paper is about climate change
being a big problem. But the article doesn’t say that. It says that
we face an unsolvable predicament and great tragedy. When the
reviewer says “There are not clear contributions that can be
derived from the article” then I wonder whether that is wilful
blindness, as the article is saying that the basis of the field is
now untenable.
At
a couple of points, I attempted to cut through the unemotional way
that research is presented. Or instance, when I directly address the
reader about the implications of the analysis for their own likely
hunger and safety, it is to elicit an emotional response. I say in
the text why I express myself in that way and that although it is not
typical in some journals the situation we face suggests to me that we
do try to communicate emotively. The reviewer comments “the
language used is not appropriate for a scholarly article.”
The
second reviewer summarises the paper as “the introduction of deep
adaptation as an effective response to climate change” which
suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding despite it being made
clear throughout the paper. There is no “effective” response. The
reviewer also writes “I am not sure that the extensive presentation
of climate data supports the core argument of the paper in a
meaningful way.” Yet the summary of science is the core of the
paper as everything then flows from the conclusion of that analysis.
Note that the science I summarise is about what is happening right
now, rather than models or theories of complex adaptive systems which
the reviewer would have preferred.
One
piece of feedback from the 2nd reviewer is worth quoting verbatim:
“The
authors stress repeatedly that “climate-induced societal collapse
is now inevitable” as if that was a factual statement… I was left
wondering about the social implications of presenting a scenario for
the future as inevitable reality, and about the responsibility of
research in communicating climate change scenarios and strategies for
adaptation. As the authors pointed out, denial is a common emotional
response to situations that are perceived as threatening and
inescapable, leading to a sense of helplessness, inadequacy, and
hopelessness and ultimately disengagement from the issue…”
This
perspective is one I discuss in some detail in the paper, as one that
enables denial. It reflects the self-defeating hierarchical attitude
towards society that many of us have in both academia and
sustainability, where we censure our own exploration of a topic due
to what we consider should or should not be communicated. There is
both scholarship and experience on the impact of communicating about
disaster, and I discuss that in the paper.
The
trauma from assessing our situation with climate change has led me to
become aware of and drop some of my past preoccupations and tactics.
I realise it is time to fully accept my truth as I see it, even if
partially formed and not polished yet for wider articulation. I know
that academia involves as much a process of wrapping up truth as
unfolding it. We wrap truth in disciplines, discrete methodologies,
away from the body, away from intuition, away from the collective,
away from the everyday. So as that is my truth then I wish to act on
it as well, and not keep this analysis hidden in the pursuit of
academic respect. Instead, I want to share it now as a tool for
shifting the quality of conversations that I need to have. Therefore,
I have decided to publish it simply as an IFLAS Occasional Paper.
The
process has helped me realise that I need to relinquish activities
that I no longer have passion for, in what I am experiencing as a
dramatically new context. Therefore, I must step back from the
Editorial team of the journal. Thank you for having involved me and
congratulations on it now being in the top ten journals in business,
management and accounting.
Please
pass on my thanks to the reviewers. On my
website http://www.jembendell.com I
will be listing some links to articles, podcasts, videos and social
networks that are helping people explore and come to terms with a
realisation of near term collapse (and even extinction), which they
may be interested in.
Yours
sincerely,
Jem
Bendell
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.