Biases in the production of knowledge 875


FIG. 4 Network of the top 30 institutions and organizations based on their betweenness scores. Lines between institutions indicate that at least one author has been in both institutions throughout their career. Node size indicates betweenness scores: larger nodes represent institutions that more frequently act as a bridge between two other institutions in the authors’ careers and smaller nodes represent those that appear less frequently.


services and poverty over the study period. Neither initiative is strongly represented in the literature we analysed (having apparently supported the research published in,3%of the articles in our sample of 1,430), or to have strongly influ- enced patterns of collaboration amongst authors. Neither appears to have played a foundational role in the co- authoring network. The Natural Capital Project is linked to more papers, which is not that surprising as it began 2 years earlier. Authors funded by it are strongly represented among the most cited authors, with half acting as key net- work brokers and .75% being among the most collabora- tive, but most papers in our sample derived funding from other sources. It appears that most of the research funded by these initiatives in our sample did not have a central ana- lytical focus on poverty. This is surprising, given that both aimed to produce research concerned with human well- being and poverty alleviation, and because many of the authors in these networks did obtain funding from these programmes. This may reflect the practical difficulties of making the connection between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation, and/or that more specialized research to advance understanding of ecosystems tends to be pub- lished before research on their contribution to poverty alle- viation. However, we concluded our data collection in 2016, before all the outputs of the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation programme had been published, and as a result we may not have captured all papers reporting funded research that focused on poverty issues.


In conclusion, our findings suggest that a range of


changes are required to the way the production of knowl- edge on ecosystem services and poverty is organized. There is a need to broaden the geography of knowledge production and the disciplinary range of research, and to address gender gaps and to focus research funding on issues of poverty as well as on ecosystem science. In particular, we identify four opportunities to improve the system of knowl- edge production on ecosystem services and poverty. Firstly, we see potential formore extensive collaboration and knowl- edge co-production across disciplines, as the study of the re- lationship between ecosystemservices and poverty requires an interdisciplinary lens to be fully understood and acted upon. Secondly, we see a need to increase the involvement and cen- trality of researchers based in the Global South in publication networks, suggesting that increasing no-fee access to high im- pact factor journals, and efforts by Northern researchers to read and cite the work of scholars outside the Northern scien- tificmainstreamare important.Thirdly, there is a need to pro- mote the role of Southern researchers in research design and leadership.There is a role here for funding programmes to ac- tively seek inputs from these individuals to research agenda design, and to encourage them to lead research projects. Fourthly, we see potential to draw activists and practitioners, especially from traditionally disempowered minorities, into the production of knowledge about ecosystem services and poverty, tomaximize the range of insights brought to under- standing this critical conservation and development problem.


Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 868–877 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320000940


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164