Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLynch, A. J.
dc.contributor.authorFernández-Llamazares, A.
dc.contributor.authorPalomo, I.
dc.contributor.authorJaureguiberry, P.
dc.contributor.authorAmano, T.
dc.contributor.authorBasher, Z.
dc.contributor.authorLim, M.
dc.contributor.authorMwampamba, T. H.
dc.contributor.authorSamakov, A.
dc.contributor.authorSelomane, O.
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-29T10:13:25Z
dc.date.available2023-08-29T10:13:25Z
dc.date.issued2021-02-19
dc.identifier.citationOne Earth: 4 (2): 269-278-278 (2021)es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/62259
dc.description.abstractMulticultural representation is a stated goal of many global scientific assessment processes. These processes aim to mobilize a broader, more diverse knowledge base and increase legitimacy and inclusiveness of these assessment processes. Often, enhancing cultural diversity is encouraged through involvement of diverse expert teams and sources of knowledge in different languages. In this article, we examine linguistic diversity, as one representation of cultural diversity, in the eight published assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Our results show that the IPBES assessment outputs are disproportionately filtered through English-language literature and authors from Anglophone countries. To incorporate more linguistic diversity into global ecosystem assessment processes, we present actionable steps for global science teams to recognize and incorporate non-English-language literature and contributions from non-Anglophones. Our findings highlight the need for broad-scale actions that enhance inclusivity in knowledge synthesis processes through balanced representation of different knowledge holders and sources. Synthesis of science and knowledge requires integration from multiple scales and diverse sources. Inherent biases and structural inequities within the scientific community favor English-language literature and Anglophone experts. We examined the linguistic diversity of assessment experts, references they consulted, comments they received, and the final reports of eight ecological assessments recently produced by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We found that, despite encouragement, non-English-language literature was rarely consulted, even in linguistically diverse author teams. Such omission can bias assessments and perpetuate unequal power dynamics in science. The scientific community can work to be more inclusive. Methodological guidelines for these global assessments can facilitate this transition but, ultimately, systemic change is needed to democratize collection and representation of science and knowledge. Multicultural representation is a stated goal of many global scientific assessment processes. We examined linguistic diversity, as one representation of cultural diversity, in the eight published assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Our analysis shows that having diverse expert teams does not fully address the issue of low linguistic diversity. Further efforts and mechanisms are needed to effectively incorporate linguistically diverse literature and knowledge into ecosystem assessment processes. © 2021 Elsevier Inc.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipWe thank all the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) fellows for an enriching experience and discussions. We thank Editor Andrew and the three anonymous reviewers as well as Logan E. Neu (University of Minnesota) for conducting an internal review of this manuscript for the U.S. Geological Survey. Á.F.-L. is funded by the Academy of Finland (grant agreement no. 311176 ). I.P. was supported by the Programme d’Investissements d’avenir ( 19-MPGA-0009 ). P.J. was partially funded by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research . T.A. is funded by the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship ( FT180100354 ) and the University of Queensland strategic funding. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. We thank all the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) fellows for an enriching experience and discussions. We thank Editor Andrew and the three anonymous reviewers as well as Logan E. Neu (University of Minnesota) for conducting an internal review of this manuscript for the U.S. Geological Survey. ?.F.-L. is funded by the Academy of Finland (grant agreement no. 311176). I.P. was supported by the Programme des_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherOne Earthes_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectcultural diversityes_ES
dc.subjectintergovernmental processes_ES
dc.subjectknowledgees_ES
dc.subjectIPBESes_ES
dc.subjectlanguagees_ES
dc.subjectlanguage barrierses_ES
dc.subjectnon-Anglophoneses_ES
dc.subjectnon-English languageses_ES
dc.subjectrepresentationes_ES
dc.subjectscientific literaturees_ES
dc.titleCulturally diverse expert teams have yet to bring comprehensive linguistic diversity to intergovernmental ecosystem assessmentses_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.holder© 2021 Elsevier Inc.es_ES
dc.rights.holderAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 España*
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.002es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.002
dc.contributor.funderU.S. Government
dc.contributor.funderU.S. Geological Survey
dc.contributor.funderAustralian Research Council
dc.contributor.funderUniversity of Queensland
dc.contributor.funderAcademy of Finland
dc.contributor.funderInter-American Institute for Global Change Research


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2021 Elsevier Inc.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2021 Elsevier Inc.