Intersectional boundary work in socializing new experts. The case of IPBES

Abstract

Expert organizations are often described as facilitators of the interactions between science and policy. In managing this boundary, they must also manage other boundaries, such as those between different knowledge systems and between different categories of actors. However, how this intersectional boundary work is performed, and what it implies, is still unexplored territory. Focusing on the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this study contributes knowledge on the intersectionality of boundary work and how it influences the production of global policy-relevant knowledge. This is done by examining how IPBES socializes junior experts to become senior experts. This socialization process makes a number of norms and ideals visible and enables an analysis of how the knowhow of boundary work is passed forward from one generation of experts to the next. The study analyzes three boundaries: between senior and junior experts, between science and policy, and between scientific knowledge and indigenous and local knowledge. The findings show how intersectional boundary work is crucial in the creation of expert organizations and policy-relevant knowledge. In the case of IPBES, this study shows how the institutionalization of the organization unintentionally has created restrictions for the boundary work between different knowledge systems.

The science-policy interface on ecosystems and people: challenges and opportunities

“…Stevance et al (2020) show how diverse stakeholders from across countries and sectors are brought together by a global platform such as IPBES. Gustafsson et al (2019) identify the crucial importance of intersectional boundary work at the boundaries between senior and junior experts, between science and policy and between scientific knowledge and indigenous and local knowledge. Washbourne et al (2020) highlight the need to improve collaborations and policy relevance by integrating even more social scientists, researchers from developing countries, early career scientists and policymakers in IPBES.…”

“…Co-production can occur at national or regional scales as well, as shown by the national mountain assessment analyzed by Crouzat et al (2019). Gustafsson et al (2019) elucidate the learning process that takes place within IPBES across multiple boundaries -between junior and senior researchers, knowledge forms, across geographies and cultures. Washbourne et al (2020) acknowledge that working in such transdisciplinary fashion implies a 'huge learning curve', seen as both inspiring and rewarding.…”

“…Washbourne et al (2020) acknowledge that working in such transdisciplinary fashion implies a 'huge learning curve', seen as both inspiring and rewarding. Gustafsson et al (2019) also highlight difficulties in including other knowledge systems (especially ILK), in the co-production of knowledge, when the 'credibility' of such knowledge is validated by a western scientific framework. Washbourne et al (2020) highlight that some scientists perceive that IPBES related work as 'too focused on policies', which could draw focus from and hinder the development of science.…”

“…Science-policy interfaces can help speed up linking science findings to policy development and implementation (Crouzat et al 2019;Krug et al 2020;Stevance et al 2020). Researchers working at the interface of science and policy have a crucial and urgent role to play at generating the knowledge decision makers need to act swiftly (Crouzat et al 2019;Gustafsson et al 2019;Krug et al 2020;Stevance et al 2020;Washbourne et al 2020). This is particularly relevant for the case of the linkages between ecosystems and people, and the need to speedily limit climate change and biodiversity loss below threatening levels.…”

“…Yet, rules of policy procedures and funding opportunities can either reinforce these inequities or help science-policy interfaces and societal actors overcoming them (Krug et al 2020). Intersectional relations can change power dynamic among the involved stakeholders (Gustafsson et al 2019). Relational values linked to equity and justice are likewise ever more present, as they are increasingly being considered and incorporated into systematic assessment on nature, such as in the case study of Schröter et al (2020).…”