Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge

During its 20 years of publication, the journal Global Environmental Change has given visibility and coherence to the eponymous research paradigm. Global environmental research has brought forth new kinds of knowledge about the multi-scale interactions between physical and social dimensions of the environment. This essay reflects on some of the problems with making and governing these global kinds of knowledge, as suggested through the perspectives of a nascent geography of science. I use climate change – an emblematic theme of global environmental change research over the last 20 years – to examine three facets of the global environmental change paradigm: making global kinds of knowledge, globalising environmental values and the governance of knowledge-making. New global kinds of knowledge have gained power and visibility in contemporary scientific, public and political fora and yet such knowledge can be ‘brittle’, easily cracked and broken. A geography of global environmental change knowledge therefore demands we turn our attention away from the globalising instincts that so easily erase difference and collapse meaning, and instead concern ourselves with understanding the relationships between knowledge-making and human culture in evolving places. Only then will we recognise the ambiguities, voids and blind spots in our understanding of the world's complexity.

Research highlights▶ Global environmental research makes global kinds of knowledge about the multi-scale interactions between physical and social dimensions of the environment. ▶ Using climate change as my example and perspectives from the geography of science I examine some of the problems with such global knowledge-making. ▶ Examples are given of global-average temperature, globalised economic value and global institutions such as the IPCC which govern knowledge-making. ▶ Rather than the dominant existing approaches that make ‘brittle’ knowledge, I suggest the metaphor of ‘liquid knowledge’ would better describe knowledge which pays close attention to the different places and cultures where knowledge is made and accredited. ▶ ‘Liquid’ knowledge may better suit approaches to problem-solving which are polycentric rather than monocentric.