IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v21y2021i1p130-151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory Designs and Epistemic Authority in Knowledge Platforms for Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Alejandro Esguerra
  • Sandra van der Hel

Abstract

Expert organizations increasingly adopt participatory strategies to strengthen their knowledge claims. We introduce the notion of knowledge platforms for sustainability to conceptualize expert organizations that not only rhetorically embrace but also actively attempt to institutionalize the norm of stakeholder participation in seeking authority in sustainability governance. In doing so, they encounter a tension between the ambition of stakeholder participation and conventional foundations of epistemic authority, such as scientific autonomy and consensus. Taking this tension as a starting point, we utilize a dynamic perspective on epistemic authority to investigate the contestations over institutional designs. We compare the institutionalization of participation in two knowledge platforms for sustainability—the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and the research platform Future Earth: Research for Global Sustainability. Our comparison reveals that institutional designs for participation open up the process of knowledge creation and evaluation. Yet, in seeking epistemic authority, knowledge platforms also reinforce existing power structures by redrawing boundaries that protect scientific autonomy and privilege relationships with elite actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Alejandro Esguerra & Sandra van der Hel, 2021. "Participatory Designs and Epistemic Authority in Knowledge Platforms for Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(1), pages 130-151, Winter.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:21:y:2021:i:1:p:130-151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00573
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esther Turnhout & Bob Bloomfield & Mike Hulme & Johannes Vogel & Brian Wynne, 2012. "Listen to the voices of experience," Nature, Nature, vol. 488(7412), pages 454-455, August.
    2. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    3. van der Hel, Sandra, 2016. "New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 165-175.
    4. Löfmarck, Erik & Lidskog, Rolf, 2017. "Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the knowledge divide," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 22-28.
    5. Heide Hackmann & Susanne C. Moser & Asuncion Lera St. Clair, 2014. "The social heart of global environmental change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(8), pages 653-655, August.
    6. Kunseler, Eva-Maria & Tuinstra, Willemijn, 2017. "Navigating the authority paradox: Practising objectivity in environmental expertise," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1-7.
    7. De Pryck, Kari & Wanneau, Krystel, 2017. "(Anti)-boundary work in global environmental change research and assessment," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 203-210.
    8. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Banning chlorofluorocarbons: epistemic community efforts to protect stratospheric ozone," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 187-224, January.
    9. Kovács, Eszter Krasznai & Pataki, György, 2016. "The participation of experts and knowledges in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 131-139.
    10. Jennifer Garard & Martin Kowarsch, 2017. "Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    11. Allan, Bentley B., 2017. "Producing the Climate: States, Scientists, and the Constitution of Global Governance Objects," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 131-162, January.
    12. Hannah Hughes & Alice B. M. Vadrot, 2019. "Weighting the World: IPBES and the Struggle over Biocultural Diversity," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 19(2), pages 14-37, May.
    13. Haas, Peter M., 2017. "The epistemic authority of solution-oriented global environmental assessments," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 221-224.
    14. Rolf Lidskog & Göran Sundqvist, 2015. "When Does Science Matter? International Relations Meets Science and Technology Studies," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, February.
    15. Kari De Pryck & Krystel Wanneau, 2017. "(Anti)-boundary work in global environmental change research and assessment," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/273657, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Alejandro Esguerra & Silke Beck & Rolf Lidskog, 2017. "Stakeholder Engagement in the Making: IPBES Legitimization Politics," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(1), pages 59-76, February.
    17. Lars Opgenoorth & Stefan Hotes & Harold Mooney, 2014. "Biodiversity panel should play by rules," Nature, Nature, vol. 506(7487), pages 159-159, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schweinsberg, Stephen, 2022. "The epistemic authority of tourism academics," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Monika Berg & Rolf Lidskog, 2018. "Pathways to deliberative capacity: the role of the IPCC," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 11-24, May.
    2. Alejandro Esguerra & Silke Beck & Rolf Lidskog, 2017. "Stakeholder Engagement in the Making: IPBES Legitimization Politics," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(1), pages 59-76, February.
    3. Matteo De Donà, 2022. "‘Getting the Science Right’? Epistemic Framings of Global Soil and Land Degradation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Kari De Pryck, 2021. "Intergovernmental Expert Consensus in the Making: The Case of the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC 2014 Synthesis Report," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(1), pages 108-129, Winter.
    5. Haas, Peter M., 2018. "Preserving the epistemic authority of science in world politics," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2018-105, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    6. Rolf Lidskog & Monika Berg & Karin M. Gustafsson & Erik Löfmarck, 2020. "Cold Science Meets Hot Weather: Environmental Threats, Emotional Messages and Scientific Storytelling," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 118-128.
    7. Timo Y. Maas & Annet Pauwelussen & Esther Turnhout, 2022. "Co-producing the science–policy interface: towards common but differentiated responsibilities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Ritodhi Chakraborty & Pasang Yangjee Sherpa, 2021. "From climate adaptation to climate justice: Critical reflections on the IPCC and Himalayan climate knowledges," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-14, August.
    9. Wim Carton & Adeniyi Asiyanbi & Silke Beck & Holly J. Buck & Jens F. Lund, 2020. "Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    10. Jeanie Bukowski, 2017. "A “new water culture†on the Iberian Peninsula? Evaluating epistemic community impact on water resources management policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 239-264, March.
    11. Hallberg-Sramek, Isabella & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Priebe, Janina & Reimerson, Elsa & Mårald, Erland & Nordin, Annika, 2023. "Combining scientific and local knowledge improves evaluating future scenarios of forest ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    12. Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Jodi Brandt & Carla L. Atkinson & Colden V. Baxter & Morey Burnham & Benis N. Egoh & Marina García-Llorente & Jason P. Julian & Berta Martín-López & Feli, 2018. "Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    13. Thor Olav Iversen, 2023. "Boundary experts: Science and politics in measuring the Sustainable Development Goals," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(4), pages 600-610, September.
    14. Kydd, Andrew H., 2010. "Learning together, growing apart: Global warming, energy policy and international trust," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2675-2680, June.
    15. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    16. João M. Lopes & Sofia Gomes & Rosselyn Pacheco & Elizabete Monteiro & Carolina Santos, 2022. "Drivers of Sustainable Innovation Strategies for Increased Competition among Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, May.
    17. Ferretti, Johanna, 2021. "Elemente erfolgreicher Prozesse im Umgang mit Mensch-Wildtier-Interaktionen: Empfehlungen für die Prozessgestaltung zur Erstellung eines Konfliktmanagementplans Fischerei-Kegelrobben Mecklenburg-Vorpo," Thünen Working Papers 164, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    18. Andrey Krasovskii & Nikolay Khabarov & Ruben Lubowski & Michael Obersteiner, 2019. "Flexible Options for Greenhouse Gas-Emitting Energy Producer," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, October.
    19. Pritchard, Rose & Ryan, Casey M. & Grundy, Isla & van der Horst, Dan, 2018. "Human Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity and Rural Livelihoods: Findings From Six Villages in Zimbabwe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 115-124.
    20. Jane A. Flegal & Aarti Gupta, 2018. "Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 45-61, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:21:y:2021:i:1:p:130-151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.