Disciplines, Geography, and Gender in the Framing of Climate Change

s to classify each oral presentation into a domain, not the presumed background of each presenter. The Copenhagen Congress was exceptional in its disciplinary spread of papers (compared, for example, to the knowledge domains represented in the IPCC). We found contributions from diverse knowledge domains—from ethics and philosophy to the geosciences (Fig. 1). Indeed, the majority of papers were not from the geosciences. Yet the Con-gress secretariat chose to emphasize geosciences in to prevent imminent environmental catastrophe) are proving elusive. Rather than advocating the selection of a particular frame, we instead suggest that multiple frames should be allowed to gain legitimacy, opening the way to multiple solutions even though with their in -herent complexity they may initially be unappealing. An episteMologiCAl hierArChY. There is emerging recognition that different institutions promote certain types of climate change knowledge production, while other types are marginalized—a situation we term an “epistemological hierarchy.” In a forthcoming article in