“……证据是无可辩驳的”:世界水坝委员会的证据政治

IF 3.6 3区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Christopher Schulz, William M. Adams
{"title":"“……证据是无可辩驳的”:世界水坝委员会的证据政治","authors":"Christopher Schulz,&nbsp;William M. Adams","doi":"10.1111/geoj.70002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Evidence-based policy-making increasingly shapes the practice of advisory bodies, including global environmental assessments (GEAs). Advocates point to the power of evidence (particularly, but not only scientific evidence) to improve policy-making. Here we discuss how political considerations shaped evidence-gathering and use within the World Commission on Dams (WCD), a GEA body which was active between 1998 and 2000. We use insights from semi-structured interviews with participants in the WCD process. First, we argue that the WCD shows that the political nature of evidence-gathering has long been important in GEA processes. Despite rhetoric emphasising the objectivity of its evidence base, the WCD's evidence-gathering was permeated by political considerations, for example in convening stakeholders with opposing views, giving evidence an instrumental purpose in widening participation and epistemic authority beyond just information and learning. Second, we show how a diversity of evidence (in form and substantive content) can challenge mainstream views. Contrary to the conventional emphasis on technical and quantitative data in GEA processes, we show how personal engagement with emotionally charged evidence, including that from grassroots sources and participatory processes within the WCD, created a shared understanding among opposing sides.</p>","PeriodicalId":48023,"journal":{"name":"Geographical Journal","volume":"191 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/geoj.70002","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘…and the evidence was irrefutable’: The politics of evidence in the World Commission on Dams\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Schulz,&nbsp;William M. Adams\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/geoj.70002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Evidence-based policy-making increasingly shapes the practice of advisory bodies, including global environmental assessments (GEAs). Advocates point to the power of evidence (particularly, but not only scientific evidence) to improve policy-making. Here we discuss how political considerations shaped evidence-gathering and use within the World Commission on Dams (WCD), a GEA body which was active between 1998 and 2000. We use insights from semi-structured interviews with participants in the WCD process. First, we argue that the WCD shows that the political nature of evidence-gathering has long been important in GEA processes. Despite rhetoric emphasising the objectivity of its evidence base, the WCD's evidence-gathering was permeated by political considerations, for example in convening stakeholders with opposing views, giving evidence an instrumental purpose in widening participation and epistemic authority beyond just information and learning. Second, we show how a diversity of evidence (in form and substantive content) can challenge mainstream views. Contrary to the conventional emphasis on technical and quantitative data in GEA processes, we show how personal engagement with emotionally charged evidence, including that from grassroots sources and participatory processes within the WCD, created a shared understanding among opposing sides.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geographical Journal\",\"volume\":\"191 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/geoj.70002\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geographical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geoj.70002\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geographical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geoj.70002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于证据的决策日益影响咨询机构的做法,包括全球环境评估(GEAs)。倡导者指出,证据(尤其是但不仅仅是科学证据)的力量可以改善政策制定。在这里,我们讨论了政治因素如何影响了世界水坝委员会(WCD)的证据收集和使用,WCD是一个在1998年至2000年期间活跃的GEA机构。我们从与WCD过程参与者的半结构化访谈中获得见解。首先,我们认为WCD表明证据收集的政治性质在GEA过程中一直很重要。尽管口头上强调其证据基础的客观性,但WCD的证据收集仍充满了政治考虑,例如召集持反对意见的利益相关者,使证据具有工具性目的,以扩大参与和知识权威,而不仅仅是信息和学习。其次,我们展示了证据的多样性(在形式和实质性内容上)如何挑战主流观点。与传统上强调GEA流程中的技术和定量数据不同,我们展示了个人与充满情感的证据(包括来自基层的证据和WCD内的参与性过程)的接触如何在对立双方之间建立了共同的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘…and the evidence was irrefutable’: The politics of evidence in the World Commission on Dams

Evidence-based policy-making increasingly shapes the practice of advisory bodies, including global environmental assessments (GEAs). Advocates point to the power of evidence (particularly, but not only scientific evidence) to improve policy-making. Here we discuss how political considerations shaped evidence-gathering and use within the World Commission on Dams (WCD), a GEA body which was active between 1998 and 2000. We use insights from semi-structured interviews with participants in the WCD process. First, we argue that the WCD shows that the political nature of evidence-gathering has long been important in GEA processes. Despite rhetoric emphasising the objectivity of its evidence base, the WCD's evidence-gathering was permeated by political considerations, for example in convening stakeholders with opposing views, giving evidence an instrumental purpose in widening participation and epistemic authority beyond just information and learning. Second, we show how a diversity of evidence (in form and substantive content) can challenge mainstream views. Contrary to the conventional emphasis on technical and quantitative data in GEA processes, we show how personal engagement with emotionally charged evidence, including that from grassroots sources and participatory processes within the WCD, created a shared understanding among opposing sides.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: The Geographical Journal has been the academic journal of the Royal Geographical Society, under the terms of the Royal Charter, since 1893. It publishes papers from across the entire subject of geography, with particular reference to public debates, policy-orientated agendas.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信