Global environmental politics research in a time of crisis
Kate J. Neville, Matthew J. Hoffmann
Abstract
Kate J. Neville, Matthew J. Hoffmann
Abstract
This chapter examines the contradictions and complications of global environmental politics (GEP) scholarship in turbulent times. It identifies a series of cross-cutting pressures that challenge GEP scholars: institutional pressure for particular forms of research; external pressure for “policy relevant” research; a climate of skepticism about expertise and science; and a growing sense of environmental catastrophe. It argues for four pathways to address these challenges, whereby analytically rigorous research is underpinned by: normative transparency; the development of methods to address incomplete information and dynamic systems; diverse understandings of scholarly engagement; and increased community building. The goal of the intervention is to identify both opportunities and challenges for increasing research transparency, improving relationships of trust between researchers and other communities, and enhancing the plurality of perspectives and diversity of debates in environmental politics.
OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This chapter examines the contradictions and complications of global environmental politics (GEP) scholarship in turbulent times. It identifies a series of cross-cutting pressures that challenge GEP scholars: institutional pressure for particular forms of research; external pressure for “policy relevant” research; a climate of skepticism about expertise and science; and a growing sense of environmental catastrophe. It argues for four pathways to address these challenges, whereby analytically rigorous research is underpinned by: normative transparency; the development of methods to address incomplete information and dynamic systems; diverse understandings of scholarly engagement; and increased community building. The goal of the intervention is to identify both opportunities and challenges for increasing research transparency, improving relationships of trust between researchers and other communities, and enhancing the plurality of perspectives and diversity of debates in environmental politics.
Key concepts: Transparency (behavior), Scholarship, Skepticism, Politics, Normative, Political science, Environmental ethics, Intervention (counseling)