Evelien de Hoop: There is politics inside sustainability and global inequality research

1 October 2019

Is knowledge neutral? And do the choices we make in how we produce knowledge have implications for the way those making decisions engage with grand challenges like sustainability and global inequality?

Dr. Evelien de Hoop is a post-doctoral researcher at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development at Utrecht University. In this interview she tells us about her work on the politics of knowledge.

Evelien removing the low oil content outer layer of Pongamia seeds with elderly women in a village as traders only buy the inner oil-rich seeds. Women collect these seeds to earn a small amount of money to use for their personal needs. Photo: S. Patel

What do you mean by the politics of knowledge, and what does it mean for sustainable development?

“We often overlook the normativity that is inherent to processes of knowledge production - processes like scientific research. The questions we ask, the methods we use and the theoretical frameworks through which we analyze our findings are essential elements of the knowledge we produce. Different questions, methods and theoretical frameworks result in - unsurprisingly - different knowledge. How we choose each of these elements reflects what we deem important, and is as a result deeply political.

Different knowledges on the same issue make it possible for the issue to be viewed in different ways

Crucially, different knowledges on the same issue make it possible for the issue to be viewed in different ways, thereby leading to different kinds of solutions. This has consequences for the direction and inclusivity of sustainability policy and therefore for global inequality.”

But isn’t knowledge neutral?

“Our education system teaches us that facts and values are two very separate things. However, I approach them as co-produced, intimately entangled and therefore inseparable. This idea is very difficult to communicate when we have been brought up to think that knowledge is inherently neutral.”

When did you notice this was a problem?

“During my PhD on biodiesel production and governance in India, I saw that the biodiesel literature was making many assumptions. Assumptions about what farmers want, what production circumstances are like and should be like, and what’s good for India. These assumptions have led to an understanding that biodiesel can be profitable and sustainable for India’s development, and is associated with a strong pro-biofuel policy in India.

Biodiesel production was often much less attractive than what the knowledge generated by scientists suggested

At the same time, according to knowledge from the farmers I engaged with as an ethnographer, biodiesel production took place in many different ways and was often much less attractive than what the knowledge generated by scientists suggested.

What kind of issues were important to farmers?

“Many farmers were not very keen on trees with seeds that need to be harvested every year - as is the case for most biodiesel crops. They preferred trees where the value was in the trunk, and which could be harvested after a decade or more.

A farmer explains why he’s about to cut down his Pongamia trees yielding oilseeds suitable for biodiesel production – based on a logic incongruent with mainstream science’s approaches to the desirability of cultivating these trees. Photo: E. de Hoop

This difference in time-frame would enable them to pay for less frequent but larger expenses like dowries. It would also reduce their work pressure; they considered harvesting biodiesel seeds to be a highly labour-intensive endeavour. This wasn’t all. Promoting the cultivation of biodiesel crops reinforced existing inequality structures within villages, particularly the divide between land-owning and landless, often low-caste, farmers.

When scientists calculate how attractive a biodiesel cultivation scheme might be for farmers it’s based solely on their expected yearly income. Farmer preferences and the inequality implications are often overlooked.”

I look at the assumptions made in formalised knowledge practices by scientists and recognised experts and contrast them with other, often informal knowledge practices.

Evelien de Hoop
Post-doctoral researcher, Utrecht University

So how do you address this in your research?

“I look at the assumptions made in formalised knowledge practices by scientists and recognised experts and contrast them with other, often informal knowledge practices. I study how these different knowledges inform how solutions such as Innovations and policies are developed.”

What do you hope to achieve?

“I hope to broaden our understanding of what and whose knowledges are deemed legitimate, so that there is less a priori authority attributed to formalised science without looking at how that science was made. Ultimately, I hope that this contributes towards more inclusive engagement with the global challenges of our times.”

News

Evelien de Hoop: There is politics inside sustainability and global inequality research