Working the boundary: science–policy interactions and uneven knowledge politics in IPBES

10Citations
Citations of this article
45Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The rising demand for policy-relevant knowledge has supported the emergence of global boundary organizations at the science–policy interface. By synthesizing environmental knowledge for policy-makers, boundary organizations influence how we know and govern sustainability challenges. Therefore, it is essential to better understand what happens in and through these organizations. This paper examines the very practices that configure science–policy relations in global boundary organizations by studying the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Through Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Political Ecology perspectives, we disclose mechanisms of boundary work that demarcate science from non-science and, hereby, determine which expertise becomes authoritative in IPBES. Building on original empirical data, we first examine how science and policy domains were interrelated during the IPBES global assessment process (2016–2019). Second, we investigate how this boundary work shaped the production of biodiversity knowledge. Our findings indicate that integration and demarcation efforts configured science–policy relations through formalized and informal mechanisms. We argue that this boundary work continuously established science as authoritative voice for addressing biodiversity loss in IPBES. Spatial aspects of boundary work highlight power differentials between IPBES member States that manifested in uneven geographies of knowledge. Instead of concealing these inequalities through the norm of political neutrality, we need to recognize boundary organizations as political spaces in which science and policy are co-produced. By adopting a critical and reflexive co-productionist approach, it becomes possible to addresses uneven knowledge–power relations through more inclusive and transparent practices. Boundary organizations, such as IPBES, are then able to provide more diversified environmental explanations and transformative solutions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wiegleb, V., & Bruns, A. (2023). Working the boundary: science–policy interactions and uneven knowledge politics in IPBES. Sustainability Science, 18(3), 1069–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01238-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free