Shedding the cloak of neutrality: A guide for reflexive practices to make the sciences more inclusive and just

Abstract The environmental sciences community cannot meaningfully address the compounding ecological and societal crises of our time without also addressing epistemic oppression—the persistent, systemic exclusion that dismisses or erases certain forms of expertise in knowledge production and scientific practices. Epistemic oppression is justified by the inaccurate assumption that scientific knowledge is neutral, value‐free, and objective. This assumption persists because science practices omit information about who we are and how we come to know the world in our work. It operates through the construction of knowledge hierarchies at three levels: (1) privileging particular worldviews of individual scientists, (2) privileging certain academic disciplines, and (3) privileging Eurocentric knowledge systems. To limit epistemic harms, we need to acknowledge that the sciences are inherently relational (i.e., emerge out of relationships among scientists and what we study) and situated (i.e., dependent on the social context surrounding knowledge production). By recognizing and reflecting on assumptions of neutrality, we can transform the scientific community toward fostering greater inclusion and acceptance of diverse worldviews, theories of knowledge, and methodologies to simultaneously address today's wicked problems and advance true diversity, equity, and belonging. Moving from concepts to practice, we outline several reflexive strategies and offer examples and guiding questions to acknowledge our standpoints in scientific research. By embracing reflexivity in our practices, including making our positionality in our work explicit, the environmental sciences can become more inclusive and effective at addressing the compounding crises of this era.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecosphere
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70168
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
25.21

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Shedding the cloak of neutrality: A guide for reflexive practices to make the sciences more inclusive and just

Harold N. Eyster, Michèle Koppes, Stephen M. Chignell, Rapichan Phurisamban et al.
6 citations
Ecosphere
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
25.21
article

Shedding the cloak of neutrality: A guide for reflexive practices to make the sciences more inclusive and just

Harold N. Eyster, Michèle Koppes, Stephen M. Chignell, Rapichan Phurisamban, Erika Luna Pérez
article en
6 citations

Abstract

Abstract The environmental sciences community cannot meaningfully address the compounding ecological and societal crises of our time without also addressing epistemic oppression—the persistent, systemic exclusion that dismisses or erases certain forms of expertise in knowledge production and scientific practices. Epistemic oppression is justified by the inaccurate assumption that scientific knowledge is neutral, value‐free, and objective. This assumption persists because science practices omit information about who we are and how we come to know the world in our work. It operates through the construction of knowledge hierarchies at three levels: (1) privileging particular worldviews of individual scientists, (2) privileging certain academic disciplines, and (3) privileging Eurocentric knowledge systems. To limit epistemic harms, we need to acknowledge that the sciences are inherently relational (i.e., emerge out of relationships among scientists and what we study) and situated (i.e., dependent on the social context surrounding knowledge production). By recognizing and reflecting on assumptions of neutrality, we can transform the scientific community toward fostering greater inclusion and acceptance of diverse worldviews, theories of knowledge, and methodologies to simultaneously address today's wicked problems and advance true diversity, equity, and belonging. Moving from concepts to practice, we outline several reflexive strategies and offer examples and guiding questions to acknowledge our standpoints in scientific research. By embracing reflexivity in our practices, including making our positionality in our work explicit, the environmental sciences can become more inclusive and effective at addressing the compounding crises of this era.

EcosphereVol. 16(4)
University of Vermont (US), The Nature Conservancy (US), University of British Columbia (CA)
Government of Canada, Mitacs, University of British Columbia
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
25.21
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.