Sharlene and Lieke contributed to the IPCC report: 'an unforgettable experience'
And suddenly you are one of the contributing authors of the impressive IPCC report part II on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability that was launched this February. It happened to TPM researchers Sharlene Gomes and Lieke Brackel. Both would not have wanted to miss out on the experience.
It all started with an invitation on twitter two years ago in 2020. Researchers were sought to contribute to the 'water' chapter of the IPCC report that was to be written. Sharlene and Lieke responded to the call. And because they both had the right research background in water-related adaptation, they were selected to participate. Both were over the moon with this wonderful opportunity to contribute to such an important scientific report and soon they had to get to work.
Lots of papers
Their job was to review what had already been researched on water-related climate adaptation globally in different sectors. In practice, this meant going through a lot of published papers under fierce time pressure, because the deadlines were strict. With 23 team members who had both a geographically and academically diverse background, they first ploughed through 2000 papers written between 2014-2020 on this topic while doing a quick scan. The papers had to be coded for relevance: Are they about water adaptation? Is there evidence about effectiveness of adaptation measures in the article? In this first stage, papers needed to tick a number of indicators, seven in all. In the end, 359 papers remained to be further examined by at least 2 or 3 reviewers in the summer and fall of 2020.
An outstanding opportunity
In the spring of 2020, they got to work. 'Since I was housebound during the corona period anyway, I thought working on this for the IPCC report would be a good use of my free time. You don't get a chance like this every day', says Sharlene. Lieke thought the same way. ‘I was in the middle of my PhD project, but I couldn't pass this up, even if I had to do it next to my regular work.’ Fortunately, Leon Hermans and Neelke Doorn, the supervisors of Sharlene and Lieke respectively, supported the initiative. Lieke liked the fact that, in addition to the somewhat solitary PhD project, she and other experts could discuss which papers were to be included. We sometimes had lively discussions about it because indicators were sometimes interpreted differently. This cross-checking was really important, especially for a high-level report like the IPCC's. It was also nice that the IPCC leaders were open to adding papers that we thought belonged there, but were not included in the initial 2000 selected papers. We were also able to help review other parts of the IPCC report as experts. That was also very cool.'
Challenging
There was quite a bit of time pressure during the whole process. In 2020 Lieke and Sharlene were meticulously going through the selected papers to collect nice quotes for the IPCC report. ‘At the time I had this moment of how I was going to manage all this, in addition to my regular duties,' says Lieke. Sharlene also found it quite challenging to do so much work next to her postdoc trajectory. After this intensive round, most of the work was done for both researchers. Until later that year in November and December when they were asked to make a synthesis of all the results of subjects within the theme ‘adaptation in the water sector’ for the different sectors, such as agriculture and urban/peri-urban environment. Then it was up to the coordinating lead authors of the IPCC chapter 4 to use this input to write the paragraph for the IPCC report. Eventually our work ended up in paragraph 4.7.
Veni?
The whole experience has inspired Sharlene to apply for a veni grant in which she wants to go even deeper into what indicators you should use to measure success in climate adaptation planning in cities. Also, reading the various papers in this field has brought her new insights and ideas to write 'follow up' papers, perhaps also with the researchers she worked closely with in writing the IPCC report. Sharlene: 'I found it particularly interesting to look at climate adaptation on a global scale. In my PhD and Postdoc research I have done that mainly at the local, community level. Contributing to the report was a real enrichment for my own development in the research field of water policy issues in the urban and peri-urban environment.
Enriching of research skills
Lieke does not yet have any concrete plans with the substantive knowledge she has gained, because it does not fit in one-to-one with her PhD research on ethics in climate adaptation. But the whole systematic research process has made her a stronger researcher, it enriched her research skills. ‘For example, I experienced the importance of definitions being clear when you are engaged in a review process. The learning curve was steep. That made it intense and instructive. Sometimes it was also a bit boring because not all the papers were equally interesting, especially if they were not directly related to your own research. But that didn't outweigh the experience and what I learned. For example, I really liked making an impact at the policy level, to make a societal contribution, that certainly doesn't always happen with research.’
Sharlene has now completed her postdoc and will start work as an assistant professor at Leiden University on 1 June. Lieke hopes to have her doctorate in 1,5 years’ time. And then this experience will be a nice and valuable addition to her CV!
Would you like to know more? Lieke has written a blog about her experiences during the co-writing of the IPCC. You can read it here.