2018
DOI: 10.1177/2514848618785515
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards a critical politics of translation: (Re)Producing hegemonic climate governance

Abstract: This paper raises critical questions about the relationship between knowledge translation and hegemonic power, and the way that this relationship shapes particular forms of neoliberal climate governance. The process of making scientific knowledge meaningful for policy audiences is increasingly being described as knowledge translation (over knowledge transfer or knowledge exchange), but what process does the language of translation describe? What discursive work is performed? And what politics does this shift i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 77 publications
(91 reference statements)
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Besides, longitudinal studies could illuminate whether the acceptance of alternative knowledge foundations changes over time. Finally, we encourage climate governance scholars to engage with other fields of study to grasp the complex societal challenges of the climate crisis. More precisely, we propose an exchange with social movement studies (Corry & Reiner, 2021; de Moor, 2020; Hess, 2005) and science and technology studies (Jasanoff, 2010; Machen, 2018; O'Lear, 2016). Climate governance scholars can make use of the knowledge that has been generated within these research communities, for example, regarding questions connected to how knowledge is being produced, mobilized, and contested (Beck et al, 2021; Jamison, 2010).…”
Section: A Research Agendamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, longitudinal studies could illuminate whether the acceptance of alternative knowledge foundations changes over time. Finally, we encourage climate governance scholars to engage with other fields of study to grasp the complex societal challenges of the climate crisis. More precisely, we propose an exchange with social movement studies (Corry & Reiner, 2021; de Moor, 2020; Hess, 2005) and science and technology studies (Jasanoff, 2010; Machen, 2018; O'Lear, 2016). Climate governance scholars can make use of the knowledge that has been generated within these research communities, for example, regarding questions connected to how knowledge is being produced, mobilized, and contested (Beck et al, 2021; Jamison, 2010).…”
Section: A Research Agendamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is nothing neutral about the act of translation. Machen (2018) has previously argued that an emphasis on translation in science‐policy settings constructs climate knowledge through policy users’ own frameworks of reference. As “translation machines,” algorithms and their “designers are not pursuing correctness, … [but] user satisfaction” (Gillespie, 2016, p. 20).…”
Section: Thinking Algorithmicallymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On one hand CXC changes the social dynamics within the social network in which it is situated, enabling and empowering researchers within the research institutes who may feel isolated to increase possibilities for achieving research impact by building familiarity, trusted relations and policy presence 6 . On the other hand, CXC's shift in the balance of power between producers and users means that the policy framing of the user gains greater weight in the shaping of environmental knowledge, which has implications for the politics of knowledge construction at the science-policy interface (Machen 2018, forthcoming). In following a co-production approach, CXC further deconstructs the binary distinction between producers and users of knowledge initiating instead a new mode of knowledge prosumer (Toffler 1980).…”
Section: The Role Of Trust In Pathways To Policy Impactsmentioning
confidence: 99%