Pluralism, paralysis, practice: making environmental knowledge usable

References

• Berkes F. 2012. Sacred ecology. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Borie M, Gustafsson KM, Obermeister N, Turnhout E, Bridgewater P. 2020. Institutionalising reflexivity? Transformative learning and the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). Environ Sci Policy. 110(August):71–11. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.005.
   Google Scholar
• Borie M, Mahony M, Obermeister N, Hulme M. 2021. Knowing like a global expert organization: comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES. Global Environ Change. 8:102261. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102261.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A. 2012. Social research methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 100(14):8086–8091. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Sousa Santos B. 2016. Epistemologies of the south: justice against epistemicide. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and People. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 14(June):1–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
   Google Scholar
• Díaz-Reviriego I, Turnhout E, Beck S. 2019. Participation and inclusiveness in the intergovernmental science–policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nat Sustainability. 2(6):457–464. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0290-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunkley R, Baker S, Constant N, Sanderson-Bellamy A. 2018. Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries. Int Environ Agreements. 18(6):779–799. doi:10.1007/s10784-018-9415-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esguerra A, Beck S, Lidskog R. 2017. Stakeholder engagement in the making: IPBES legitimization politics. Global Environ Politics. 17(1):59–76. doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galison P. 1994. The ontology of the enemy: Norbert Wiener and the cybernetic vision. Crit Inq. 21(1):228–266. doi:10.1086/448747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galison P, Hevly B. editors. 1992. Big science: the growth of large-scale research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galletta A. 2013. Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: from research design to analysis and publication. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Granjou C, Mauz I, Louvel S, Tournay V. 2013. Assessing nature? The genesis of the intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). Sci Technol Soc. 18(1):9–27. doi:10.1177/0971721813484232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grundmann R. 2012. The legacy of climategate: revitalizing or undermining climate science and policy? WIREs Clim Change. 3(3):281–288. doi:10.1002/wcc.166.
   Google Scholar
• Haas PM, Stevens C. 2011. Organized science, usable knowledge, and multilateral environmental governance. In: Lidskog R Sundqvist G, editors. Governing the air: the dynamics of science, policy, and citizen interaction. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press; p. 125–162.
   Google Scholar
• Hakkarainen V, Anderson CB, Eriksson M, van Riper CJ, Horcea-Milcu A, Raymond CM. 2020. Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science. Environ Sci Policy. 105(March):11–18. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.003.
   Google Scholar
• Hammond D. 2003. Science of synthesis: exploring the social implications of general systems theory. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Harding S. 2015. Objectivity and diversity: another logic of scientific research. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heyck H. 2015. Age of system: understanding the development of modern social science. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hilgartner S. 2004. The credibility of science on stage. Soc Stud Sci. 34(3):443–452. doi:10.1177/0306312704043694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill R, Adem Ç, Alangui WV, Molnár Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bridgewater P, Tengö M, Thaman R, Adou Yao CY, Berkes F, et al. 2020. Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 43(April):8–20. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006.
   Google Scholar
• Lidskog R, Standring A, White JM. 2022. Environmental expertise and social transformation: roles and responsibilities for social science. Environ Soc. 8(3):255–266. doi:10.1080/23251042.2022.2048237.
   Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld R. 1978. The rise of systems theory: an ideological analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Löfmarck E, Lidskog R. 2017. Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the knowledge divide. Environ Sci Policy. 69(March):22–28. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.008.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch AJ, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Palomo I, Jaureguiberry P, Amano T, Basher Z, Lim M, Mwampamba TH, Samakov A, Selomane O. 2021. Culturally diverse expert teams have yet to bring comprehensive linguistic diversity to intergovernmental ecosystem assessments. One Earth. 4(2):269–278. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.002.
   Google Scholar
• Maier DS, Feest A. 2016. The IPBES conceptual framework: an unhelpful start. J Agric Environ Ethics. 29(2):327–347. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9584-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marres N. 2007. The issues deserve more credit: pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Soc Stud Sci. 37(5):759–780. doi:10.1177/0306312706077367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElwee P, Fernández‐llamazares Á, Aumeeruddy‐thomas Y, Babai D, Bates P, Galvin K, Guèze M, Liu J, Molnár Z, Ngo HT, Reyes‐García V, et al. 2020. Working with indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large‐scale ecological assessments: reviewing the experience of the IPBES global assessment. J Appl Ecol. July:1365–2664.13705.
   Google Scholar
• Montana J. 2017. Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: achieving closure through typologies in IPBES. Environ Sci Policy. 68(February):20–27. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.011.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe C. 1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Soc Res (New York). 66(3):745–758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Başak Dessane E, Islar M, Kelemen E, et al. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 26–27(June):7–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.
   Google Scholar
• Potter E. 2013. Scientific judgment and agonistic pluralism. Philos Stud. 163(1):85–92. doi:10.1007/s11098-012-0077-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks T, Capistrano D, editors. 2006. Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shapin S. 1996. The scientific revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shapin S, Schaffer S. 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stokland HB, Stenseke M, Emery MR. 2022. A network to enhance the contributions from the social sciences and humanities to IPBES. Ecosyst People. 18(1):95–98. doi:10.1080/26395916.2022.2034971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO. 43(5):579–591. doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timpte M, Montana J, Reuter K, Borie M, Apkes J. 2018. Engaging diverse experts in a global environmental assessment: participation in the first work programme of IPBES and opportunities for improvement. Innovation. 31(sup1):S15–37. doi:10.1080/13511610.2017.1383149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vadrot ABM. 2014. The epistemic and strategic dimension of the establishment of the IPBES: “Epistemic Selectivities” at work. Innovation. 27(4):361–378. doi:10.1080/13511610.2014.962014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P. editors. 2006. Interpretation and method: empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. Armonk and London: M. E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar