Pluralism, paralysis, practice
Making Environmental Knowledge Usable
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5796002 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James M White (0000-0002-6735-3893, Örebro University, corresponding author), R Lidskog (0000-0001-6735-0011, Örebro University) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2023-01-04 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Ecosystems and People (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2639-5908 • E-ISSN: 2639-5916 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/26395916.2022.2160822 |
| OpenAlex | W4313495547 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 13 |
| References cited | 36 |
In recent years, the global environmental science-policy interface has come to include a greater variety of knowledge. Social scientists have joined natural scientists at the policy table, and Indigenous and local knowledge is being taken ever more seriously. But this pluralisation raises political, normative, and epistemic challenges for environmental expert organisations, including with respect to how knowledge is managed, how it is judged to be valid, how it is made policy-relevant, and how it is presented to policy-makers and decision-takers. Based on an interview study of experts involved in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), we identify three broad approaches to these challenges: the integrationist logic, which seeks to combine all knowledge into a single ontology; the parallelist, which looks for similarities and connections between irreconcilable ontologies; and the pragmatist, which strives to apply knowledge when and where it will have the greatest positive impact. Rather than champion any one of these approaches, the paper explores their origins and how they negotiate paralyses to the timeliness of work. In avoiding ultimate formalisation of how value and knowledge pluralism are to be handled, IPBES allow more contextually sensitive practices to come to the fore. The paper concludes by discussing implications for environmental expertise more broadly
Pluralism · Traditional knowledge · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Expertise in transition. How inclusion of social science reshapes a global environmental assessment
Making global environmental assessments fit for future challenges
Traditional ecological knowledge and the aesthetic appreciation of nature
Functions and dimensions of pluralism in transformative governance for biodiversity
Science on ecosystems and people to support the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
Weaving Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to discern drivers of mooz (moose) population decline
Unpacking the task of synthesis when weaving knowledge systems for biodiversity assessments
Mainstreaming biodiversity and the challenge of sectoral ontologies
Who are the green transition experts? Towards a new research agenda on climate change knowledge
Expert knowledge and institutional interplay
Finnish experts’ perceptions of Ipbes operating principles – Synergies and tensions between the multiple evidence base and credibility, policy relevance and legitimacy
Weaving scientific and local knowledge on climate change impacts in coastal Kenya, Western Indian Ocean
From climate facts to climate risks. How the IPCC treats risk and uncertainty
Big science
Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond
Age of System
The Scientific Revolution
Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large‐scale ecological assessments
Knowledge systems for sustainable development
Epistemologies of the South
Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?
Objectivity and Diversity
Sacred Ecology
A network to enhance the contributions from the social sciences and humanities to Ipbes
Assessing Nature? The Genesis of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes)
Culturally diverse expert teams have yet to bring comprehensive linguistic diversity to intergovernmental ecosystem assessments
Participation and inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Environmental expertise for social transformation
Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people
The Ipbes Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people
Valuing nature’s contributions to people
The legacy of climategate
Enabling the Ipbes conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries
Stakeholder Engagement in the Making
Grounding Ipbes experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science
Institutionalising reflexivity? Transformative learning and the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes)
Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production
Bumping against the boundary
The epistemic and strategic dimension of the establishment of the Ipbes
Engaging diverse experts in a global environmental assessment
The Ipbes Conceptual Framework
Knowing like a global expert organization
The Issues Deserve More Credit
The Credibility of Science on Stage
Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance
Leviathan and the Air-Pump
The Ontology of the Enemy
| Unique citing works | 13 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 4,33 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 12 |