Towards an ‘Ethics of Evidence’: Unsettling knowledge inequalities in urban development practice

IF 2.3 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Stephanie Butcher , Kazi Nazrul Fattah , Jennifer Dam , Rewa Marathe
{"title":"Towards an ‘Ethics of Evidence’: Unsettling knowledge inequalities in urban development practice","authors":"Stephanie Butcher ,&nbsp;Kazi Nazrul Fattah ,&nbsp;Jennifer Dam ,&nbsp;Rewa Marathe","doi":"10.1016/j.wdp.2025.100689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Globally, ‘evidence-based’ approaches within urban development policy and planning are on the rise. However, terms such as data, evidence, research, information, and knowledge are often used interchangeably, which can obscure epistemological differences on the understandings of <em>knowledge.</em> Taking cues from Southern scholars, this article unpacks the epistemological underpinnings which shape how knowledge—and therefore evidence—are understood. To do so, this article focuses on three concepts which have a strong influence on global evidence discourse: objectivity, rigour, and value for money, unsettling their rationalities and manifestations in contemporary urban development practice. This paper argues that the turn towards evidence—while fundamental to addressing global challenges—also embodies many of the characteristics of a ‘boundary concept’, with sufficient interpretive flexibility to foster collaboration across a range of diverse stakeholders, but with risks attached to its conceptual fuzziness. This article concludes by calling for an ‘ethics of evidence’, which challenges the uneven geographies of knowledge, and draws out the implications for an approach to evidence which engages with how urban developmental challenges are understood, measured, and managed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37831,"journal":{"name":"World Development Perspectives","volume":"38 ","pages":"Article 100689"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Development Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452292925000347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Globally, ‘evidence-based’ approaches within urban development policy and planning are on the rise. However, terms such as data, evidence, research, information, and knowledge are often used interchangeably, which can obscure epistemological differences on the understandings of knowledge. Taking cues from Southern scholars, this article unpacks the epistemological underpinnings which shape how knowledge—and therefore evidence—are understood. To do so, this article focuses on three concepts which have a strong influence on global evidence discourse: objectivity, rigour, and value for money, unsettling their rationalities and manifestations in contemporary urban development practice. This paper argues that the turn towards evidence—while fundamental to addressing global challenges—also embodies many of the characteristics of a ‘boundary concept’, with sufficient interpretive flexibility to foster collaboration across a range of diverse stakeholders, but with risks attached to its conceptual fuzziness. This article concludes by calling for an ‘ethics of evidence’, which challenges the uneven geographies of knowledge, and draws out the implications for an approach to evidence which engages with how urban developmental challenges are understood, measured, and managed.
迈向“证据伦理”:城市发展实践中令人不安的知识不平等
在全球范围内,城市发展政策和规划中的“循证”方法正在增加。然而,数据、证据、研究、信息和知识等术语经常互换使用,这可能会模糊对知识理解的认识论差异。从南方学者那里得到启发,本文揭示了塑造如何理解知识和证据的认识论基础。为此,本文将重点关注对全球证据话语有强烈影响的三个概念:客观性、严谨性和物有所值,并在当代城市发展实践中颠覆它们的合理性和表现形式。本文认为,向证据的转变虽然对应对全球挑战至关重要,但也体现了“边界概念”的许多特征,具有足够的解释灵活性,可以促进不同利益相关者之间的合作,但其概念的模糊性带来了风险。本文最后呼吁建立“证据伦理”,挑战知识地理分布的不均衡,并提出了一种涉及如何理解、衡量和管理城市发展挑战的证据方法的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Development Perspectives
World Development Perspectives Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
65
审稿时长
84 days
期刊介绍: World Development Perspectives is a multi-disciplinary journal of international development. It seeks to explore ways of improving human well-being by examining the performance and impact of interventions designed to address issues related to: poverty alleviation, public health and malnutrition, agricultural production, natural resource governance, globalization and transnational processes, technological progress, gender and social discrimination, and participation in economic and political life. Above all, we are particularly interested in the role of historical, legal, social, economic, political, biophysical, and/or ecological contexts in shaping development processes and outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信