Conference Presentations by Noam Obermeister
Environmental Science & Policy, 2017
This paper provides an account of how epistemological differences between the natural and physica... more This paper provides an account of how epistemological differences between the natural and physical sciences and social sciences may be a barrier to multiscalar and inclusive forms of knowledge governance in global environmental assessments (GEAs). It proposes the concept of geographies of knowledge, to designate both the universalising drive of a positivist epistemology and the localism of relativist and constructivist epistemologies. The paper attempts to determine whether these conflicting geographies of knowledge have been barriers to greater integration of non-scientific knowledge systems - such as Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) - by looking at the cases of three GEAs: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The paper concludes that innovations in knowledge governance which seek to give more weight to non-scientific knowledge systems should more explicitly acknowledge and address interdisciplinary epistemological differences.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Papers by Noam Obermeister
Environmental Science & Policy, 2020
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Sustainability Science, 2018
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Environmental Communication, 2018
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Nature Climate Change, 2018
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Environmental Science & Policy, 2017
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Palgrave Communications, 2020
The art and craft of science advice is not innately known by those scientists who choose to step ... more The art and craft of science advice is not innately known by those scientists who choose to step out of the lab or the university to engage with the world of policy. Despite a wealth of literature on the ‘science of science advice’, in nearly every situation there is no ‘teacher’ of science advice; it is a typical case of learning on the job. Within that context, the learning of scholars engaging in expert advice is always situated and can sometimes be transformative. To date, however, there has been no systematic, in-depth research into expert advisers’ learning—instead focusing mostly on policymakers’ and publics’ learning about science. In this article, I suggest that such a research programme is timely and potentially a very fruitful line of inquiry for two mains reasons. First, in the case of environmental and climate issues—the focus of the paper—it has become ubiquitous to talk about the need for transformative change(s) towards sustainable futures. If scholars are going to a...
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
On 17 to 19th October 2017, twenty-four academics and practitioners with diverse inter- and trans... more On 17 to 19th October 2017, twenty-four academics and practitioners with diverse inter- and transdisciplinary experiences gathered for a workshop to collectively reflect on IPBES’ work and performa ...
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Global Environmental Change-human and Policy Dimensions, 2021
In this paper we draw on Science and Technology (STS) approaches to develop a comparative analyti... more 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 di...
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Palgrave Communications, 2020
The art and craft of science advice is not innately known by those scientists who choose to step ... more The art and craft of science advice is not innately known by those scientists who choose to step out of the lab or the university to engage with the world of policy. Despite a wealth of literature on the 'science of science advice', in nearly every situation there is no 'teacher' of science advice; it is a typical case of learning on the job. Within that context, the learning of scholars engaging in expert advice is always situated and can sometimes be transformative. To date, however, there has been no systematic, in-depth research into expert advisers' learning-instead focusing mostly on policymakers' and publics' learning about science. In this article, I suggest that such a research programme is timely and potentially a very fruitful line of inquiry for two mains reasons. First, in the case of environmental and climate issues-the focus of the paper-it has become ubiquitous to talk about the need for transformative change(s) towards sustainable futures. If scholars are going to advocate for and inform transformations beyond academia, then in doing so they ought to also take a harder look at how they themselves are transforming within. Specifically, the article illustrates how qualitative research on advisers' learning can contribute to our understanding of how experts are adapting to changing circumstances in science-policy interactions. Second, it is argued that research on advisers' learning can directly contribute to: (i) guidance for present and future advisers (especially early-career researchers wishing to engage with policy) and organisational learning in science-policy organisations; and (ii) improving policy-relevance of research and the design of impact evaluations for research funding (e.g. Research Excellence Framework). With the hope of stimulating (rather than closing off) innovative ideas, the article offers some ways of thinking through and carrying out such a research programme. As the nature of both science and policymaking continues to change, the learning experiences of expert advisers is a bountiful resource that has yet to be tapped into.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Sustainability Science, 2018
In 2016, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IP... more In 2016, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) published its first methodological assessment report on scenarios and models, identifying important gaps in the literature. IPBES has since then moved onto Phase 2, namely a commitment to build on the assessment findings to catalyse the development of the next generation of multi-scale models and scenarios for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Part of that commitment involves the inclusion of Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) in those models and scenarios. IPBES is both an institution (with its governance structure, work programme, deliverables, and so on) and a network (with its member states, authors, stakeholders, and readership). Within that network, the methodological assessment report can be said to be ‘performative’, ergo playing a significant role in shaping engagement and research pathways in the years to come. Within the social sciences, this paper marks a first attempt at evaluating some of the potential challenges of Phase 2—with specific regard to the inclusion of ILK—and strives to generate more engagement from social scientists and humanities scholars on this issue. I combine in-depth expert interviews with document analysis and focus on the ideas of ‘scale translation’ and the translation of ILK into quantitative data—which I contend are likely to be the most contentious and arduous aspects of ‘integration’. I conclude that while IPBES is on track for leading the research community away from IPCC-type global, panoptic models and scenarios, a more honest and genuine dialogue between natural scientists, social scientists, and ILK holders is still required—so as to better communicate what may be (scientifically) feasible and (politically) acceptable.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Environmental Communication, 2018
The rise and pervasiveness of post-truth and alternative facts posit fundamental questions for th... more The rise and pervasiveness of post-truth and alternative facts posit fundamental questions for the current epistemic authority of scientific knowledge. In conjunction, complex and multi-scalar problems of the likes of climate change call for research that transcends traditional disciplinary silos, upon which much of that authority was built. As such, we call for a greater involvement of the humanities in environmental research and communication. We suggest that young researchers wishing to pursue academic careers (including ourselves) may be well-equipped to reconfigure and reconcile science and the humanities within the context of their PhDs and beyond – taking a frontline position in the constant struggle to overcome longstanding antagonisms between the scholarship of fact-finding and that of meaning-making. We do so by exploring examples-within academia and beyond-where those collisions have been successful, including the works of a millennial scientist/artist and a dystopian video game.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Nature Climate Change, 2018
Through their editorializing practices, leading international science journals such as Nature and... more Through their editorializing practices, leading international science journals such as Nature and Science interpret the changing roles of science in society and exert considerable influence on scientific priorities and practices. Here we examine nearly 500 editorials published in these two journals between 1966 and 2016 that deal with climate change, thereby constructing a lens through which to view the changing engagement of science and scientists with the issue. A systematic longitudinal frame analysis reveals broad similarities between Nature and Science in the waxing and waning of editorializing attention given to the topic, but, although both journals have diversified how they frame the challenges of climate change, they have done so in different ways. We attribute these differences to three influences: the different political and epistemic cultures into which they publish; their different institutional histories; and their different editors and editorial authorship practices.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Thesis Chapters by Noam Obermeister
Through their engagements with science-policy, academics often have to revisit some of their endu... more Through their engagements with science-policy, academics often have to revisit some of their enduring assumptions and expectations about the world of policymaking. They have to learn to become (effective) science advisers in diverse contexts. No instruction manuals or guidelines have quite prepared them for their experiences sitting on scientific advisory committees or meeting with civil servants. Many scholars have spoken about the importance of learning in the interactions between scientists and policymakers, but there has been little empirical investigation putting science advisers’ learning under the microscope. How and what do they learn? How do the various advisory settings they inhabit shape their learning? And how (if at all) is their learning differentiated by levels of experience and other factors such as disciplinary training? These are some of the questions I address in this thesis. Based on in-depth interviews with experienced advisers and early-career researchers, and ethnographic observations of advisory meetings, I analyse the different moving parts in advisers’ learning journeys and the extent to which their learning is situated and transformative. I argue that there are three levels at which such an analysis can be organised: the macro (professional cultures), micro (individual profiles), and meso (organisational cultures). I discuss them in that order. Following a grounded theory approach, I devise a model of advisers’ learning based on the idea of the cultural encounter and two models of science advice (collective intelligence and networked intelligence) with repercussions on learning. I also introduce and reflect on methodological innovations, including an experimental pilot of longitudinal diaries and a stylised simulation of a scientific advisory committee. In the final chapter, I discuss the promise of these methods and present the practical implications of my findings for less experienced advisers, early-career researchers, educators, science-policy researchers, and knowledge brokers.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Conference Presentations by Noam Obermeister
Papers by Noam Obermeister
Thesis Chapters by Noam Obermeister