Datum
2019-12-18Autor
Hakkarainen, ViolaAnderson, Christopher B.Eriksson, Maxvan Riper, Carena JoleenHorcea-Milcu, Andra-IoanaRaymond, Christopher MarkMetadata
Zur Langanzeige
Aufsatz
Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science
Zusammenfassung
This study identifies and analyses the underlying assumptions of experts involved in the first author meeting (FAM) of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)’s Values Assessment, and how they shape understandings of the multiple values of nature. We draw from survey data collected from 94 experts attending the FAM. Respondents self-report the tendencies and aims they bring to the assessment (i.e. motivation), the type and amount of evidence they require for knowledge to be valid (i.e. confirmation) and their epistemic worldviews (i.e. objectivity). Four clusters emerged that correspond to Pragmatist, Post-Positivist, Constructivist and Transformative epistemic worldviews. This result clarifies how different knowledge claims are represented in science-policy processes. Despite the proportionately higher number of social scientists in the Values Assessment, compared with previous IPBES assessments, we still found that fewer experts have Constructivist or Transformative worldviews than Pragmatist or Post-Positivist outlooks, an imbalance that may influence the types of values and valuation perspectives emphasised in the assessment. We also detected a tension regarding what constitutes valid knowledge between Post-Positivists, who emphasised high levels of agreement, and Pragmatists and Constructivists, who did not necessarily consider agreement crucial. Conversely, Post-Positivists did not align with relational values and were more diverse in their views regarding definitions of multiple values of nature compared to other clusters. Pragmatists emphasized relational values, while Constructivists tended to consider all value types (including relational values) as important. We discuss the implications of our findings for future design and delivery of IPBES processes and interdisciplinary research.
Zitierform
In: Environmental Science & Policy Volume 105 (2019-12-18) , S. 11-18 ; eissn:1873-6416Zitieren
@article{doi:10.17170/kobra-2024060610292,
author={Hakkarainen, Viola and Anderson, Christopher B. and Eriksson, Max and van Riper, Carena Joleen and Horcea-Milcu, Andra-Ioana and Raymond, Christopher Mark},
title={Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science},
journal={Environmental Science & Policy},
year={2019}
}
0500 Oax 0501 Text $btxt$2rdacontent 0502 Computermedien $bc$2rdacarrier 1100 2019$n2019 1500 1/eng 2050 ##0##http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/15830 3000 Hakkarainen, Viola 3010 Anderson, Christopher B. 3010 Eriksson, Max 3010 van Riper, Carena Joleen 3010 Horcea-Milcu, Andra-Ioana 3010 Raymond, Christopher Mark 4000 Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science / Hakkarainen, Viola 4030 4060 Online-Ressource 4085 ##0##=u http://nbn-resolving.de/http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/15830=x R 4204 \$dAufsatz 4170 5550 {{Interdisziplinarität}} 5550 {{Soziales Lernen}} 5550 {{Nachhaltigkeit}} 7136 ##0##http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/15830
2024-06-10T15:40:10Z 2024-06-10T15:40:10Z 2019-12-18 doi:10.17170/kobra-2024060610292 http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/15830 eng Namensnennung 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ interdisciplinarity social learning sustainability 300 Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science Aufsatz This study identifies and analyses the underlying assumptions of experts involved in the first author meeting (FAM) of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)’s Values Assessment, and how they shape understandings of the multiple values of nature. We draw from survey data collected from 94 experts attending the FAM. Respondents self-report the tendencies and aims they bring to the assessment (i.e. motivation), the type and amount of evidence they require for knowledge to be valid (i.e. confirmation) and their epistemic worldviews (i.e. objectivity). Four clusters emerged that correspond to Pragmatist, Post-Positivist, Constructivist and Transformative epistemic worldviews. This result clarifies how different knowledge claims are represented in science-policy processes. Despite the proportionately higher number of social scientists in the Values Assessment, compared with previous IPBES assessments, we still found that fewer experts have Constructivist or Transformative worldviews than Pragmatist or Post-Positivist outlooks, an imbalance that may influence the types of values and valuation perspectives emphasised in the assessment. We also detected a tension regarding what constitutes valid knowledge between Post-Positivists, who emphasised high levels of agreement, and Pragmatists and Constructivists, who did not necessarily consider agreement crucial. Conversely, Post-Positivists did not align with relational values and were more diverse in their views regarding definitions of multiple values of nature compared to other clusters. Pragmatists emphasized relational values, while Constructivists tended to consider all value types (including relational values) as important. We discuss the implications of our findings for future design and delivery of IPBES processes and interdisciplinary research. open access Hakkarainen, Viola Anderson, Christopher B. Eriksson, Max van Riper, Carena Joleen Horcea-Milcu, Andra-Ioana Raymond, Christopher Mark doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.003 Interdisziplinarität Soziales Lernen Nachhaltigkeit publishedVersion eissn:1873-6416 Environmental Science & Policy 11-18 Volume 105 false
Die folgenden Lizenzbestimmungen sind mit dieser Ressource verbunden: