Rethinking Knowledge Cumulation: Foregrounding Epistemic Justice in Environmental Governance Research

Abstract

ABSTRACT Social science inquiry into environmental governance is theoretically and methodologically diverse, resulting in a large array of isolated pieces of knowledge. Scholars' reflections around knowledge cumulation focus on how separate bits of knowledge can feasibly be integrated to build a broader, consensual state of knowledge. Yet, experience shows that transferring knowledge from existing research to a new case can lead to ill‐adapted governance solutions. We argue that this points to a disconnect between scholars' approaches to knowledge cumulation and cumulation efforts that create actionable knowledge. Indeed, we find there is little concrete guidance offered to scholars on which rationale should guide knowledge cumulation, limiting their capacity to effectively produce actionable knowledge. In this article, we suggest giving precedence to epistemic justice instead of strict feasibility in knowledge cumulation. As a first step, we review common blind spots in knowledge cumulation efforts and argue that a perspective grounded in epistemic justice is best suited to address (global) environmental issues. As a second step, and while acknowledging the structural and institutional limits within which scholars operate, we propose that they can contribute to a shift in the principles guiding knowledge cumulation. This transformation towards epistemic justice should be pursued already at various stages of the knowledge production process, namely in conducting research, presenting and publishing research, and communicating research to policy‐makers and communities. This article is primarily directed at environmental governance scholars in the social sciences but may offer valuable insights for anyone interested in inter/trans‐disciplinary and boundary‐spanning approaches to science and policy‐making.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.