Mapping the Ontology and Epistemology of Research Into Forest Carbon Offsetting in Developing Countries

In this paper, we consider knowledge cumulation in one of the most polarized areas of environmental governance research: forest carbon offsetting in developing countries. Our specific contribution is a critical review of the ontological and epistemological positioning of 31 studies published in the peer-reviewed literature on forest carbon offsetting in Uganda. At the surface, differences appear related to methodological gaps along the qualitative-quantitative divide. However, probing deeper suggests a lack of agreement on fundamental ontological and epistemological issues, which challenges traditional understandings of scientific knowledge cumulation. Among our key findings is that research into forest carbon offsetting in Uganda is predominated by epistemologies we characterize as neopositivist (approximately half) and neo-Marxist overdetermination (approximately one-third). Structural ontologies were significantly more frequently identified in our critical review than agentic ontologies, while structure–agency balancing ontologies were the least represented. Notably, research most critical of forest carbon offsetting was characterized by an epistemology of neo-Marxist overdetermination and structural/synchronic ontology. While recognizing the limits of our critical review into forest carbon offsetting in Uganda, knowledge cumulation appears to be frustrated by a lack of agreement on fundamental ontological and epistemological presuppositions. Nonetheless, given the polarized debate on forest carbon offsetting, delineating such fundamental differences may help lay the groundwork for promoting dialogue between different research traditions. But such epistemic fragmentation or diversity may not in itself constitute epistemic justice, which requires additional attention to broader power imbalances involved in the conduct of environmental governance research in developing countries.