Scientists working on ecosystem service (ES) science are engaged in a mission-driven discipline. They can contribute to science-policy interfaces where knowledge is co-produced and used. How scientists engage with the governance arena to mobilise their knowledge remains a matter of personal choice, influenced by individual values. ES science cannot be considered neutral and a discussion of the values that shape it forms an important part of the sustainability dialogue. We propose a simple decision tree to help ES scientists identify their role and the purpose of the knowledge they produce. We characterise six idealised scientific postures spanning possible roles at the science-policy interface (pure scientist, science arbiter-guarantor, issue advocate-guardian, officer, honest broker and stealth issue advocate) and illustrate them with feedbacks from interviews. We encourage ES scientists to conduct a reflexive exploration of their attitudes regarding knowledge production and use, with the intention of progressing toward a higher recognition of the political and ethical importance of ES assessments.

No abstract

Despite the abundant literature on transformation of research and the affective dimension of research practice, affective governing of research has not been documented to the same extent. To address this gap, we examine how scientific research can be affectively governed by research institutions. We focus on the case of ecosystem services science, an interdisciplinary field of research expected to lead to decisions capable of halting environmental degradation. Drawing on theoretical discussions bridging the concept of affect and the Foucauldian concept of government, we argue that affects can be mobilised as a technology of government in governing scientific practice. We identify three affective techniques used to govern ecosystem service research and discuss the limits of governing research through affects. Our analysis deepens the understanding of how academic work is transformed in the context of redefined relations between science and society.

No abstract