CCPortal
DOI10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102261
Knowing like a global expert organization: Comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES
Borie M.; Mahony M.; Obermeister N.; Hulme M.
发表日期2021
ISSN9593780
卷号68
英文摘要In this paper we draw on Science and Technology (STS) approaches to develop a comparative analytical account of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The establishment of both of these organizations, in 1988 and 2012 respectively, represented important ‘constitutional moments’ in the global arrangement of scientific assessment and its relationship to environmental policymaking. Global environmental assessments all share some similarities, operating at the articulation between science and policy and pursuing explicit societal goals. Although the IPCC and IPBES have different objectives, they are both intergovernmental processes geared towards the provision of knowledge to inform political debates about, respectively, climate change and biodiversity loss. In spite of these similarities, we show that there are significant differences in their knowledge practices and these differences have implications for environmental governance. We do this by comparing the IPCC and IPBES across three dimensions: conceptual frameworks, scenarios and consensus. We argue that, broadly speaking, the IPCC has produced a ‘view from nowhere’, through a reliance on mathematical modelling to produce a consensual picture of global climate change, which is then ‘downscaled’ to considerations of local impacts and responses. By contrast IPBES, through its contrasting conceptual frameworks and practices of argumentation, appears to seek a ‘view from everywhere’, inclusive of epistemic plurality, and through which a global picture emerges through an aggregation of more placed-based knowledges. We conclude that, despite these aspirations, both organizations in fact offer ‘views from somewhere’: situated sets of knowledge marked by politico-epistemic struggles and shaped by the interests, priorities and voices of certain powerful actors. Characterizing this ‘somewhere’ might be aided by the concept of institutional epistemology, a term we propose to capture how particular knowledge practices become stabilized within international expert organizations. We suggest that such a concept, by drawing attention to the institutions’ knowledge practices, helps reveal their world-making effects and, by doing so, enables more reflexive governance of both expert organizations and of global environmental change in general. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd
关键词Expert culturesGEAsInstitutional epistemologyIPBESIPCCReflexivityScience-policy interface
英文关键词biodiversity; climate change; comparative study; environmental change; global climate; global perspective; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; policy making
语种英语
来源期刊Global Environmental Change
文献类型期刊论文
条目标识符http://gcip.llas.ac.cn/handle/2XKMVOVA/205483
作者单位Department of Geography King's College London, United Kingdom; School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom; Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
Borie M.,Mahony M.,Obermeister N.,et al. Knowing like a global expert organization: Comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES[J],2021,68.
APA Borie M.,Mahony M.,Obermeister N.,&Hulme M..(2021).Knowing like a global expert organization: Comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES.Global Environmental Change,68.
MLA Borie M.,et al."Knowing like a global expert organization: Comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES".Global Environmental Change 68(2021).
条目包含的文件
条目无相关文件。
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Borie M.]的文章
[Mahony M.]的文章
[Obermeister N.]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Borie M.]的文章
[Mahony M.]的文章
[Obermeister N.]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Borie M.]的文章
[Mahony M.]的文章
[Obermeister N.]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。