IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v68y2017icp80-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Obermeister, Noam

Abstract

This paper provides an account of how epistemological differences between the natural and physical sciences and social sciences may be a barrier to multiscalar and inclusive forms of knowledge governance in global environmental assessments (GEAs). It proposes the concept of geographies of knowledge, to designate both the universalising drive of a positivist epistemology and the localism of relativist and constructivist epistemologies. The paper attempts to determine whether these conflicting geographies of knowledge have been barriers to greater integration of non-scientific knowledge systems − such as Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) − by looking at the cases of three GEAs: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The paper concludes that innovations in knowledge governance which seek to give more weight to non-scientific knowledge systems should more explicitly acknowledge and address interdisciplinary epistemological differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Obermeister, Noam, 2017. "From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 80-86.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:68:y:2017:i:c:p:80-86
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116308413
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Chukwumerije Okereke, 2017. "A six-component model for assessing procedural fairness in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 509-522, December.
    2. Karin M. Gustafsson, 2019. "Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Ria Dunkley & Susan Baker & Natasha Constant & Angelina Sanderson-Bellamy, 2018. "Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 779-799, December.
    4. Karl Dudman & Sara Wit, 2021. "An IPCC that listens: introducing reciprocity to climate change communication," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 1-12, September.
    5. Adeyeye, Yemi & Hagerman, Shannon & Pelai, Ricardo, 2019. "Seeking procedural equity in global environmental governance: Indigenous participation and knowledge politics in forest and landscape restoration debates at the 2016 World Conservation Congress," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    6. Marcellus Forh Mbah & Chidi Ezegwu, 2024. "The Decolonisation of Climate Change and Environmental Education in Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-25, April.

    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:eee:enscpo:v:68:y:2017:i:c:p:80-86. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    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.