Artists-in-residence to foster more reflective modelling practices

Abstract

Abstract One of the most prominent tools to explore sustainable futures are integrated assessment models (IAMs). Although IAMs have analytical strengths, their limitations risk closing-down imaginaries of sustainable futures. Critics therefore argue for a more ‘reflective’ IAM practice, where modellers critically question and reconsider their assumptions in explored futures and their role in climate policymaking. This paper scrutinises an unexplored avenue to incite this deeper reflection: artists-in-residence. It reports on a unique collaboration between a social scientist (the author), two artists and an IAM team involving interviews, group discussions, public events and a workshop. This culminated into an artistic intervention: the Future Models Manual, a speculative manual that encourages modellers to challenge and rethink their practice. By analysing the conversations between modellers and by conducting follow-up interviews with the artists and modellers, the author scrutinises how the artists stimulated reflection among IAM modellers. The analysis suggests that by asking unexpected questions, identifying new metaphors and using visual artefacts, the artists incited reflection on the epistemological underpinnings of modelling, the ethical implications of model choices and the political influence of their scenarios. This exploratory study points to artists-in-residence as a promising avenue to incite ‘more-than-rational’ reflection in modelling practices. However, challenging and transforming the IAM practice would require a move away from the persistent view of artists as science communicators and more sustained and reciprocal art–modelling exchange. This paper not only contributes to ongoing scholarly debates on IAMs, but also offers empirical insights into the potential of art–science interactions in the context of climate and sustainability more broadly.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.