Resources - Feminist philosophy of climate change

What does it mean to develop or defend a feminist perspective on climate change and climate science? This question lies at the heart of our research project – yet it is one that we cannot yet fully answer. This resource page should therefore be taken to be a collection of ideas, questions and texts which we currently take to be of importance or use from a feminist perspective, but which will change and morph over time and is open for feedback.

Below we have put together key topics and discussions related to climate change and climate science which are either particularly central to feminist approaches or which – in our view – can benefit from insights from feminist philosophy. Below each topic, we list key texts on this topic and – where possible – texts that already bring feminist resources to bear on questions related to climate change. This is meant to provide an overview for those who are interested in this field and also highlight questions and issues which might need more research. If you are interested in a broader overview of resources from philosophy of climate science, you can find a general, annotated bibliography at philoclimate.ch/bib/.

(IN)JUSTICE
Feminist philosophy is a project centred on injustice because it seeks to dismantle the structural and systemic oppression of patriarchy and colonialism, which has historically and continues to create unequal power dynamics, discrimination, and violence against marginalised groups. Injustice can materialise in form of unjust laws and rights, economic exploitation, underrepresentation, discrimination, violence and harm. Within the context of the climate crisis, the concept of “climate injustice” is used to understand how climate impacts interact with existing systems of privilege and oppression and disproportionately harms those least responsible. Climate ethics has particularly discussed international and intergenerational injustices, and to a lesser extent interspecies injustice. A specific form of injustice which has been explored in recent epistemology is that of “epistemic injustice” which is the wrong done to a person or a group of persons in their capacity as knowers. In the context of climate change, this might well be another form of climate injustice.

Show references

Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Chapin, F. S., & Ellemor, H. (2011). This Must Be the Place: Underrepresentation of Identity and Meaning in Climate Change Decision-Making. Global Environmental Politics, 11(2), 1–25. doi: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00051
Arnold, D. G. (Ed.). (2011). The Ethics of Global Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511732294
Bourban, M. (2021). Promoting justice in global climate policies. The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of the Environment, 226–242. doi: 10.4324/9780367814533-19
Broome, J. (2008). The Ethics of Climate Change. Scientific American, 298(6), 96–102. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0608-96
Broome, J. (2012). Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World. New York and London, W. W. Norton and Company.
Byskov, M. F. (2020). What Makes Epistemic Injustice an “Injustice”? Journal of Social Philosophy, 52(1), 114–131. Portico. doi: 10.1111/josp.12348
Byskov, M. F., & Hyams, K. (2022). Epistemic injustice in Climate Adaptation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 25(4), 613–634. doi: 10.1007/s10677-022-10301-z
Byskov, M. F., Hyams, K., Satyal, P., Anguelovski, I., Benjamin, L., Blackburn, S., Borie, M., Caney, S., Chu, E., Edwards, G., Fourie, K., Fraser, A., Heyward, C., Jeans, H., McQuistan, C., Paavola, J., Page, E., Pelling, M., Priest, S., … Venn, A. (2019). An agenda for ethics and justice in adaptation to climate change. Climate and Development, 13(1), 1–9. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2019.1700774
Caney, S. (2014). Two Kinds of Climate Justice: Avoiding Harm and Sharing Burdens. Journal of Political Philosophy, 22(2), 125–149. Portico. doi: 10.1111/jopp.12030
Caney, S. (2020). Climate Justice. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, summer 2020 edition.
Coady, D. (2010). Two Concepts of Epistemic Injustice. Episteme, 7(2), 101–113. doi: 10.3366/E1742360010000845
Elabbar, A. (2024). Varying Evidential Standards as a Matter of Justice. University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.17863/CAM.107339
Fernández Pinto, M. (2020). Ignorance, Science, and Feminism, in The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science (ed. Sharon Crasnow, Kristen Intemann). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507731.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and The Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
García-Portela, L. (2025). Rectifying Climate Injustice: Reparations for Loss and Damage. Routledge.
Grasswick, H. (2017). Epistemic Injustice in Science, in The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (ed. Ian James Kidd, José Medina, Gaile Pohlhaus, Jr.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315212043.
Koskinen, I., & Rolin, K. (2019). Scientific/Intellectual Movements Remedying Epistemic Injustice: The Case of Indigenous Studies. Philosophy of Science, 86(5), 1052–1063. doi: 10.1086/705522
Ludwig, D. (2025). It’s a Shame That You Can’t Afford Rent, But We Can Offer Epistemic Compensation. On Relating Epistemic and Social Justice. Social Epistemology, 1–16. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2025.2472783
Medina, J. (2012). Hermeneutical Injustice and Polyphonic Contextualism: Social Silences and Shared Hermeneutical Responsibilities. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 201–220. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2011.652214
Okereke, C. (2010). Climate justice and the international regime. WIREs Climate Change, 1(3), 462–474. Portico. doi: 10.1002/wcc.52
Otto, F. (2025). Climate Injustice: Why We Need to Fight Global Inequailty to Combat Climate Change (Translation by Sarah Pybus). David Suzuki Institute.
Pohlhaus, G. (2012). Relational Knowing and Epistemic Injustice: Toward a Theory ofWillful Hermeneutical Ignorance. Hypatia, 27(4), 715–735. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01222.x
Schienke, E. W., Baum, S. D., Tuana, N., Davis, K. J., & Keller, K. (2010). Intrinsic Ethics Regarding Integrated Assessment Models for Climate Management. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 503–523. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9209-3
Schlosberg, D., & Collins, L. B. (2014). From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. WIREs Climate Change, 5(3), 359–374. Portico. doi: 10.1002/wcc.275
Shue, H. (2014). Climate Justice: Vulnerability and Protection. Oxford University Press.
Tomlinson, L. (2015). Introduction. Procedural Justice in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1–27. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17184-5_1
Tuana, N. (2017). Understanding coupled ethical-epistemic issues relevant to climate modeling and decision support science. In Gundersen, L., editor, Scientific Integrity and Ethics in the Geosciences. New York, American Geophysical Union.
Tuana, N. (2019). Climate Apartheid: The Forgetting of Race in the Anthropocene. Critical Philosophy of Race, 7(1), 1–31. doi: 10.5325/critphilrace.7.1.0001
Tuana, N. (2023). Racial Climates, Ecological Indifference. Oxford University Press.
Táíwò, O. O. (2022). Reconsidering Reparations. Oxford University Press.
Vincent, K., Carter, S., Steynor, A., Visman, E., & Wågsæther, K. L. (2020). Addressing power imbalances in co-production. Nature Climate Change, 10(10), 877–878. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-00910-w

VALUES
Social, ethical and political (i.e. non-epistemic) values can play an important role in climate science. Yet it is a matter of ongoing philosophical controversy which values and value-influences are legitimate and beneficial for research and what it means for science to be objective if objectivity is not value-neutrality. Feminist philosophers have made central contributions to this debate which have been applied by some to climate research. In the following list of resources we focus on texts that apply feminist accounts of values in science to climate research, but include some general accounts on values in (climate) science.

Some key texts within the feminist literature on values in science generally are:

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575. doi: 10.2307/3178066

Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton University Press.

Anderson, E. (2004). Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce. Hypatia, 19(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01266.x

Good examples for texts that apply feminist resources to climate research are:

Intemann, K. (2015). Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(2), 217–232. doi: 10.1007/s13194-014-0105-6
Jebeile, J. (2020). Values and Objectivity in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Social Epistemology, 34(5), 453–468. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2020.1779380

Show references

Anderson, E. (1995). Knowledge, Human Interests, and Objectivity in Feminist Epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 27–58. doi: 10.5840/philtopics199523213
Anderson, E. (2004). Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce. Hypatia, 19(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01266.x
Antony, L. (2021). Bias. The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Philosophy, 395–407. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190628925.013.31
Arnold, D. G. (Ed.). (2011). The Ethics of Global Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511732294
Bartsch, I. (1999). Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. By Sandra Harding. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998. Hypatia, 14(1), 132–135. doi: 10.1017/S0887536700010175
Betz, G. (2013). In defence of the value free ideal. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3(2), 207–220. doi: 10.1007/s13194-012-0062-x
Biddle, J. and Winsberg, E. (2009). Value judgments and the estimation of uncertainty in climate modeling. In Magnus, P. D. and Busch, J., editors, New waves in the Philosophy of science, pages 172–197. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Carney, M. A. (2021). Centering Black Food Cultures in Anthropology and Beyond. Current Anthropology, 62(2), 248–250. doi: 10.1086/713914
de Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2012). Interpreting Evidence: Why Values Can Matter As Much As Science. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 55(1), 59–70. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2012.0007
de Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2016). The Risk of Using Inductive Risk to Challenge the Value-Free Ideal. Philosophy of Science, 83(4), 500–520. doi: 10.1086/687259
Denton, F. (2002). Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: Why does gender matter? In Masika, R., editor, Gender, development and climate change, pages 10–20. London: Oxfam.
Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive Risk and Values in Science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579. doi: 10.1086/392855
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Elliott, K. C. (2025). Alleviating Epistemic Injustice in Environmental Health Research: Strategies from Science and Values. Topoi. doi: 10.1007/s11245-025-10268-3
Frisch, M. (2013). Modeling Climate Policies: A Critical Look at Integrated Assessment Models. Philosophy & Technology, 26(2), 117–137. doi: 10.1007/s13347-013-0099-6
Galbraith, J. (2021). Values in early-stage climate engineering: The ethical implications of “doing the research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 86, 103–113. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.01.009
Glazebrook, T. (2011). Women and Climate Change: A Case‐Study from Northeast Ghana. Hypatia, 26(4), 762–782. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01212.x
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575. doi: 10.2307/3178066
Harding, S. (1995). ?Strong objectivity?: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese, 104(3), 331–349. doi: 10.1007/BF01064504
Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and Diversity. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226241531.001.0001
Hartsock, N. (1987). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Harding, S., editor, Sex and Scientific Inquiry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hartsock, N. (1996). Comment on Hekman’s ‘truth and method’: Truth or justice. Signs, 22:367–373.
Helgeson, C., Parker, W., & Tuana, N. (2025). How Uncertainty Interacts with Ethical Values in Climate Change Research. Uncertainty in Climate Change Research, 229–235. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-85542-9_22
Intemann, K. (2005). Feminism, Underdetermination, and Values in Science. Philosophy of Science, 72(5), 1001–1012. doi: 10.1086/508956
Intemann, K. (2011). Diversity and Dissent in Science: Does Democracy Always Serve Feminist Aims? Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, 111–132. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6835-5_6
Intemann, K. (2015). Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(2), 217–232. doi: 10.1007/s13194-014-0105-6
Intemann, K. (2016). Feminist objectivity. In Wong, A., Wickramasinghe, M., Hoogland, R., and Naples, N., editors, The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies, pages 1–4. American Cancer Society.
Intemann, K. (2016). Feminist standpoint. In Disch, L. and Hawkesworth, M., editors, The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jebeile, J. (2020). Values and Objectivity in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Social Epistemology, 34(5), 453–468. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2020.1779380
Jebeile, J. (2024). From regional climate models to usable information. Climatic Change, 177(3). doi: 10.1007/s10584-024-03693-7
Jebeile, J., & Crucifix, M. (2021). Value management and model pluralism in climate science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 88, 120–127. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.06.004
John, S. (2014). The example of the IPCC does not vindicate the Value Free Ideal: a reply to Gregor Betz. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s13194-014-0095-4
Kaplan, J. M., & Turkheimer, E. (2021). Galton’s Quincunx: Probabilistic causation in developmental behavior genetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 88, 60–69. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.04.001
Knüsel, B., & Baumberger, C. (2020). Understanding climate phenomena with data-driven models. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 84, 46–56. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.08.003
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. E. (1992). Essential tensions–phase two. In McMullin, E. (Ed.), The social dimensions of science, pp. 198–216.
Longino, H. E. (1993). Subjects, power, and knowledge. In Alcoff, L. M. & Potter, E. (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies, pp. 101–120.
Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy. Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, 39–58. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-1742-2_3
Longino, H. E. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. E. (2004). How values can be good for science. In Machamer, P. K. & Wolters, G. (Eds.), pp. 127–142.
Majszak, M., & Jebeile, J. (2023). Expert judgment in climate science: How it is used and how it can be justified. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 100, 32–38. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2023.05.005
Miller, B. (2015). ‘Trust me – I’m a public intellectual’. In Keren & Hawkins, Speaking Power to Truth, pp. 113–128.
Moosa, C. S., & Tuana, N. (2014). Mapping a Research Agenda Concerning Gender and Climate Change: A Review of the Literature. Hypatia, 29(3), 677–694. doi: 10.1111/hypa.12085
O’Loughlin, R. (2020). Seepage, objectivity, and climate science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 81, 74–81. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.07.002
Parker, W. S., & Lusk, G. (2019). Incorporating User Values into Climate Services. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 100(9), 1643–1650. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0325.1
Parker, W. S., & Winsberg, E. (2017). Values and evidence: how models make a difference. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 8(1), 125–142. doi: 10.1007/s13194-017-0180-6
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al-Hafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., … Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Pulkkinen, K., Undorf, S., Bender, F., Wikman-Svahn, P., Doblas-Reyes, F., Flynn, C., Hegerl, G. C., Jönsson, A., Leung, G.-K., Roussos, J., Shepherd, T. G., & Thompson, E. (2022). The value of values in climate science. Nature Climate Change, 12(1), 4–6. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01238-9
Rolin, K. (2016). Values, standpoints, and scientific/intellectual movements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56, 11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.008
Rolin, K. (2021). Philosophy of Science Analytic Feminist Approaches. The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Philosophy, 226–236. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190628925.013.17
Rudner, R. (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science, 20(1):1–6.
Skinner, E. (2011). Gender and climate change: Overview report. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
Toman, M. (2006). Values in the Economics of Climate Change. Environmental Values, 15(3), 365–379. doi: 10.3197/096327106778226310
Usón, T. J., Klonner, C., & Höfle, B. (2016). Using participatory geographic approaches for urban flood risk in Santiago de Chile: Insights from a governance analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 66, 62–72. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.08.002
Wieten, S. (2019). Kevin Elliott, A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2017), 224 pp., $105.00 (cloth); $34.95 (paper). Philosophy of Science, 86(2), 378–383. doi: 10.1086/702030
Winsberg, E. (2012). Values and Uncertainties in the Predictions of Global Climate Models. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 22(2), 111–137. doi: 10.1353/ken.2012.0008
Wylie, A. (2003). Why standpoint matters. In Harding, S. and Figueroa, R., editors, Science and Other Cutures. Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology, pages 26–48. New York: Routledge.
Wylie, A. (2006). Introduction: When Difference Makes a Difference. Episteme, 3(1–2), 1–7. doi: 10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.1

DIVERSITY AND PLURALISM
Debates on scientific pluralism and diversity explore how scientific knowledge is shaped by disciplinary and social perspectives, methods, hermeneutical and ontological resources. Feminist philosophers in particular have argued that having a scientific community whose members have different social background and scientific perspectives is both ethically and epistemologically desirable. Current debates explore also how and when transdisciplinary research, knowledge co-production, citizen science or community-based research benefits science and society.

Show references

Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included. Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Duke University Press.
Arnold, D. G. (Ed.). (2011). The Ethics of Global Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511732294
Byskov, M. F. (2020). Four challenges to knowledge integration for development and the role of philosophy in addressing them. Journal of Global Ethics, 16(3), 262–282. doi: 10.1080/17449626.2020.1858324
Caretta, M. A., & Maharaj, S. (2024). Diversity in IPCC author’s composition does not equate to inclusion. Nature Climate Change, 14(10), 1013–1014. doi: 10.1038/s41558-024-02150-8
Dankelman, I. (Ed.). (2012). Gender and Climate Change: An Introduction. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781849775274
Dotson, K. (2011). Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing. Hypatia, 26(2), 236–257. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x
Dotson, K. (2018). On intellectual diversity and differences that may not make a difference. Ethics and Education, 13(1), 123–140. doi: 10.1080/17449642.2018.1428715
Elliott, K. C., & Steel, D. (Eds.). (2017). Current Controversies in Values and Science. doi: 10.4324/9781315639420
El Skaf, R. (2025). Post-growth and the lack of diversity in the scenario framework. Journal of Economic Methodology, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/1350178X.2025.2480069
Fehr, C. (2011). What Is in It for Me? The Benefits of Diversity in Scientific Communities. Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, 133–155. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6835-5_7
Grasswick, H. E. (2010). Scientific and lay communities: earning epistemic trust through knowledge sharing. Synthese, 177(3), 387–409. doi: 10.1007/s11229-010-9789-0
Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is “strong objectivity?”. The Centennial Review, 36(3):437–470.
Harding, S. (1995). ?Strong objectivity?: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese, 104(3), 331–349. doi: 10.1007/BF01064504
Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and Diversity. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226241531.001.0001
Intemann, K. (2009). Why Diversity Matters: Understanding and Applying the Diversity Component of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion. Social Epistemology, 23(3–4), 249–266. doi: 10.1080/02691720903364134
Koertge, N. (1992). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Sandra Harding. Isis, 83(3), 530–530. doi: 10.1086/356278
Kristie Dotson. (2012). A Cautionary Tale: On Limiting Epistemic Oppression. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 33(1), 24. doi: 10.5250/fronjwomestud.33.1.0024
Leuschner, A. (2015). Uncertainties, Plurality, and Robustness in Climate Research and Modeling: On the Reliability of Climate Prognoses. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 46(2), 367–381. doi: 10.1007/s10838-015-9304-x
Leuschner, A. (2016). Is it appropriate to ‘target’ inappropriate dissent? on the normative consequences of climate skepticism. Synthese, 195(3), 1255–1271. doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1267-x
Leuschner, A., & Fernandez Pinto, M. (2022). Exploring the limits of dissent: the case of shooting bias. Synthese, 200(4). doi: 10.1007/s11229-022-03783-y
Liverman, D., vonHedemann, N., Nying’uro, P., Rummukainen, M., Stendahl, K., Gay-Antaki, M., Craig, M., Aguilar, L., Bynoe, P., Call, F., Connors, S., David, L., Ferrone, A., Hayward, B., Jayawardena, S., Mai Touray, L., Parikh, J., Pathak, M., Perez, R., … Wagle, R. (2022). Survey of gender bias in the IPCC. Nature, 602(7895), 30–32. doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-00208-1
Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Rolin, K. (2009). Scientific Knowledge: A Stakeholder Theory. The Social Sciences and Democracy, 62–80. doi: 10.1057/9780230246867_4
Rolin, K. (2016). Values, standpoints, and scientific/intellectual movements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56, 11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.008
Rolin, K. (2017). Scientific Dissent and Fair Distribution of Epistemic Responsibility. Public Affairs Quarterly, 31(3), 209–230. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44732793
Rolin, K. (2019). The Epistemic Significance of Diversity. The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology, 158–166. doi: 10.4324/9781315717937-16
Rolin, K., Koskinen, I., Kuorikoski, J., & Reijula, S. (2023). Social and cognitive diversity in science: introduction. Synthese, 202(2). doi: 10.1007/s11229-023-04261-9
Shepherd, T. G., & Sobel, A. H. (2020). Localness in Climate Change. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 40(1), 7–16. doi: 10.1215/1089201X-8185983
Smith, G. (2010). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. By James S. Fishkin. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. 256p. $29.95. Perspectives on Politics, 8(3), 908–909. doi: 10.1017/S153759271000143X
Solomon, M. (2006). Groupthink versus The Wisdom of Crowds: The Social Epistemology of Deliberation and Dissent. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44(S1), 28–42. Portico. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2006.tb00028.x
Solomon, M. (2006). Norms of Epistemic Diversity. Episteme, 3(1–2), 23–36. doi: 10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.23
Solomon, Miriam. (2006). Norms of Epistemic Diversity. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3(1), 23–36. doi: 10.1353/epi.0.0007
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. AMBIO, 43(5), 579–591. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3
Thoma, J. (2023). Social Science, Policy and Democracy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 52(1), 5–41. Portico. doi: 10.1111/papa.12250
Whyte, K. P., & Crease, R. P. (2010). Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science. Synthese, 177(3), 411–425. doi: 10.1007/s11229-010-9786-3
Wylie, A. (2015). A Plurality of Pluralisms: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology. Objectivity in Science, 189–210. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14349-1_10
Wylie, A. (2023). Philosophy of the Field, in the Field: Philosophy of Science Association 2020/2021 Presidential Address. Philosophy of Science, 90(5), 1480–1495. doi: 10.1017/psa.2023.90
Wylie, Alison. (2006). Introduction: When Difference Makes A Difference. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3(1), 1–7. doi: 10.1353/epi.0.0009

INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL KNOWLEDGE
Currently, climate research shows an effort to align with such expectations by, as an example, integrating Indigenous and Local Knowledge in standard scientific understanding, assessments, and projections of the climate system. The historical relation between scientific communities, Indigenous peoples and local communities is, however, marked by epistemic dominance. Therefore, there are clear epistemic risks embedded in collaboration efforts such as the appropriation and datafication of Indigenous and local knowledge.

Show references

Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge. Development and Change, 26(3), 413–439. Portico. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x
Albuquerque, U. P., Ludwig, D., Feitosa, I. S., de Moura, J. M. B., Gonçalves, P. H. S., da Silva, R. H., da Silva, T. C., Gonçalves-Souza, T., & Ferreira Júnior, W. S. (2021). Integrating traditional ecological knowledge into academic research at local and global scales. Regional Environmental Change, 21(2). doi: 10.1007/s10113-021-01774-2
Alexander, C., Bynum, N., Johnson, E., King, U., Mustonen, T., Neofotis, P., Oettlé, N., Rosenzweig, C., Sakakibara, C., Shadrin, V., Vicarelli, M., Waterhouse, J., & Weeks, B. (2011). Linking Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge of Climate Change. BioScience, 61(6), 477–484. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.10
Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203123843
Byskov, M. F. (2020). Four challenges to knowledge integration for development and the role of philosophy in addressing them. Journal of Global Ethics, 16(3), 262–282. doi: 10.1080/17449626.2020.1858324
Byskov, M. F., Hyams, K., Satyal, P., Anguelovski, I., Benjamin, L., Blackburn, S., Borie, M., Caney, S., Chu, E., Edwards, G., Fourie, K., Fraser, A., Heyward, C., Jeans, H., McQuistan, C., Paavola, J., Page, E., Pelling, M., Priest, S., … Venn, A. (2019). An agenda for ethics and justice in adaptation to climate change. Climate and Development, 13(1), 1–9. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2019.1700774
Carmona, R., Reed, G., Thorsell, S., Dorough, D. S., MacDonald, J. P., Rai, T. B., & Sanago, G. A. (2023). Analysing engagement with Indigenous Peoples in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report. Npj Climate Action, 2(1). doi: 10.1038/s44168-023-00048-3
Chakraborty, R., & Sherpa, P. Y. (2021). From climate adaptation to climate justice: Critical reflections on the IPCC and Himalayan climate knowledges. Climatic Change, 167(3–4). doi: 10.1007/s10584-021-03158-1
Chilisa, B. (2016). Indigenous Research Methodologies. SAGE Publications.
Cochran, P., Huntington, O. H., Pungowiyi, C., Tom, S., Chapin, F. S., Huntington, H. P., Maynard, N. G., & Trainor, S. F. (2013). Indigenous frameworks for observing and responding to climate change in Alaska. Climatic Change, 120(3), 557–567. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0735-2
Dorji, T., Rinchen, K., Morrison-Saunders, A., Blake, D., Banham, V., & Pelden, S. (2024). Understanding How Indigenous Knowledge Contributes to Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review. Environmental Management, 74(6), 1101–1123. doi: 10.1007/s00267-024-02032-x
Ford, J. D., Cameron, L., Rubis, J., Maillet, M., Nakashima, D., Willox, A. C., & Pearce, T. (2016). Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nature Climate Change, 6(4), 349–353. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2954
Green, D., & Raygorodetsky, G. (2010). Indigenous knowledge of a changing climate. Climatic Change, 100(2), 239–242. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9804-y
Harding, S., & Mendoza, B. (2020). Latin American Decolonial Feminist Philosophy of Knowledge Production. The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science, 104–116. doi: 10.4324/9780429507731-11
Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass. Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teaching of Plants. Penguin Books.
Koskinen, I., & Rolin, K. (2019). Scientific/Intellectual Movements Remedying Epistemic Injustice: The Case of Indigenous Studies. Philosophy of Science, 86(5), 1052–1063. doi: 10.1086/705522
Kuokkanen, R. (2007). Reshaping the university. Responsibility, Indigenous Epistemes, and the Logic of the Gift. University of British Columbia Press.
Kuokkanen, R. (2019). Restructuring Relations. Indigenous Self-Determination, Governance, and Gender. Oxford University Press.
Ludwig, D. (2016). Overlapping ontologies and Indigenous knowledge. From integration to ontological self-determination. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 59, 36–45. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.06.002
Ludwig, D., & El-Hani, C. N. (2020). Philosophy of Ethnobiology: Understanding Knowledge Integration and Its Limitations. Journal of Ethnobiology, 40(1), 3–20. doi: 10.2993/0278-0771-40.1.3
Ludwig, D., & Macnaghten, P. (2019). Traditional ecological knowledge in innovation governance: a framework for responsible and just innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(1), 26–44. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2019.1676686
Ludwig, D., & Poliseli, L. (2018). Relating traditional and academic ecological knowledge: mechanistic and holistic epistemologies across cultures. Biology & Philosophy, 33(5–6). doi: 10.1007/s10539-018-9655-x
Ludwig, D., Koskinen, I., et al. (2022). Global epistemologies and philosophies of science. Routledge.
Nakashima, D., Krupnik, I. & Rubis, J. T. (2018). Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. Cambridge University Press and UNESCO: Cambridge and Paris.
Norton-Smith, K. et al. (2016). Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis. USDA General Technical Report.
Rashidi, P., & Lyons, K. (2021). Democratizing global climate governance? The case of indigenous representation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Globalizations, 20(8), 1312–1327. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2021.1979718
Satyal, P., Byskov, M. F., & Hyams, K. (2020). Addressing multi-dimensional injustice in indigenous adaptation: the case of Uganda’s Batwa community. Climate and Development, 13(6), 529–542. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2020.1824888
Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy: The Plunders of Nature and Knowledge. North Atlantic Books.
Smith, H. A., & Sharp, K. (2012). Indigenous climate knowledges. WIREs Climate Change, 3(5), 467–476. Portico. doi: 10.1002/wcc.185
Smith, T. L. (1988). Decolonizing Methodologies. Research and Indigenous Peoples. Bloomsbury Academic.
Wagner, N., & Hornidge, A.-K. (2025). Unlearning modernity? A critical examination of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climatic Change, 178(2). doi: 10.1007/s10584-025-03866-y
Whyte, K. (2016). Is it Colonial DDJJ Vu? Indigenous Peoples and Climate Injustice. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2925277
Whyte, K. (2018). Critical Investigations of Resilience: A Brief Introduction to Indigenous Environmental Studies & Sciences. Daedalus, 147(2), 136–147. doi: 10.1162/DAED_a_00497
Whyte, K. P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: a philosophical study. Ecological Processes, 2(1). doi: 10.1186/2192-1709-2-7
Whyte, K. P. (2014). Indigenous Women, Climate Change Impacts, and Collective Action. Hypatia, 29(3), 599–616. doi: 10.1111/hypa.12089
Whyte, K. P. (2017). Indigenous climate change studies: Indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Language Notes.
Whyte, K. P. (2018). Indigenous science (fiction) for the Anthropocene: Ancestral dystopias and fantasies of climate change crises. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(1–2), 224–242. doi: 10.1177/2514848618777621
Whyte, K. P. (2018). What do indigenous knowledges do for indigenous peoples? In Nelson & Shilling (Eds.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge (pp. 57–82).
Whyte, K. P. (2020). Indigenous realism and climate change. In Badia, Cetinić & Diamanti (Eds.), Climate Realism (1st ed.).
Whyte, K. P., & Crease, R. P. (2010). Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science. Synthese, 177(3), 411–425. doi: 10.1007/s11229-010-9786-3
Whyte, K. P., Brewer, J. P., & Johnson, J. T. (2015). Weaving Indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 11(1), 25–32. doi: 10.1007/s11625-015-0296-6
Whyte, K. P. (2021). Against crisis epistemology. In Moreton‑Robinson et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Critical Indigenous Studies, pp. 52–64.
Whyte, K. P. (2021). Sciences of consent: Indigenous knowledge, governance value, and responsibility. In Intemann & Crasnow (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science, pp. 117–130.
Wildcat, D. R. (2009). Red Alert. Saving the Planet with Indigenous Knowledge. Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

ACTIVISM AND SOCIALLY ENGAGED SCIENCE
Activist engagement by climate researchers has been a matter of controversy for decades. Some researchers emphasise the need to retain policy-neutrality in order to maintain the community’s credibility, others have argued that climate researchers have an ethical responsibility to speak out and engage. Feminist scholars have struggled with related problems for some time, given that feminist engagement too is often activist and has been discredited as such. We would suggest therefore that feminist resources can be brought to bear in interesting ways on the problem of climate research and activism. Below is a selection of resources that address the question of activism in the context of climate research, of feminist engagement or that bring together the two domains. In our view, helpful texts for those who come to the topic are:

Bashiri, Farzana. 2024. ‘Conceptualizing Scholar-Activism Through Scholar-Activist Accounts’. In Making Universities Matter, edited by Pauline Mattsson, Eugenia Perez Vico, and Linus Salö. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48799-6_4.
— A general account on what scholar activism means from a standpoint epistemological perspective. Very helpful to get an overview.

Oreskes, Naomi. 2020. ‘What Is the Social Responsibility of Climate Scientists?’ Daedalus 149 (4): 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01815.
— A very accessible paper arguing for the importance of scientists acting as “sentinels” with a focus on climate and environmental sciences.

Harding, Sandra G. 1992. ‘After the Neutrality Ideal: Science, Politics, and Strong Objectivity’. Social Research 59 (3).
— A key feminist text developing the concept of strong objectivity. Standpoint epistemology represents one possible way to argue for the importance of engaged research.

Show references

Bashiri, F. (2023). Conceptualizing Scholar-Activism Through Scholar-Activist Accounts. Making Universities Matter, 61–97. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-48799-6_4
Bashiri, F., Perez Vico, E., & Hylmö, A. (2025). Scholar-activism as an object of study in a diverse literature: preconditions, forms, and implications. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1). doi: 10.1057/s41599-025-05573-6
Boykoff, M., & Oonk, D. (2018). Evaluating the perils and promises of academic climate advocacy. Climatic Change, 163(1), 27–41. doi: 10.1007/s10584-018-2339-3
Capstick, S., Thierry, A., Cox, E., Berglund, O., Westlake, S., & Steinberger, J. K. (2022). Civil disobedience by scientists helps press for urgent climate action. Nature Climate Change, 12(9), 773–774. doi: 10.1038/s41558-022-01461-y
Cologna, V., Freundt, J., Mede, N. G., Howe, L., Bertsou, E., Gloor, J., Oreskes, N., Knutti, R., & Schäfer, M. S. (2024). How scientists’ collective climate advocacy affects public trust in scientists and voting behavior. Environmental Research Letters, 20(1), 014043. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad984c
Cologna, V., Knutti, R., Oreskes, N., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Majority of German citizens, US citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement. Environmental Research Letters, 16(2), 024011. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abd4ac
Donner, S. D. (2014). Finding your place on the science – advocacy continuum: an editorial essay. Climatic Change, 124(1–2), 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1108-1
Elliott, K. C., & Steel, D. (Eds.). (2017). Current Controversies in Values and Science. doi: 10.4324/9781315639420
Hansen, J. E. (2007). Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Environmental Research Letters, 2(2), 024002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002
Harding, S. (1992). After the Neutrality Ideal: Science, Politics, and Strong Objectivity. Social Research 59 (3).
Hartz, F. (2022). Leaking the IPCC: A question of responsibility? WIREs Climate Change, 14(3). Portico. doi: 10.1002/wcc.814
Herzog, L., Lenschow, A., & Pollex, J. (2023). Zwischen Wissenschaft, sozialer Bewegung und Demokratie: Scientists for Future an der Schnittstelle zwischen Politik und Gesellschaft. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 64(4), 763–800. doi: 10.1007/s11615-023-00464-4
Hilligardt, H. (2023). Partisan science and the democratic legitimacy ideal. Synthese, 202(5). doi: 10.1007/s11229-023-04370-5
Intemann, K. (2020). Understanding the Problem of “Hype”: Exaggeration, Values, and Trust in Science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(3), 279–294. doi: 10.1017/can.2020.45
John, S. (2018). Scientific deceit. Synthese, 198(1), 373–394. doi: 10.1007/s11229-018-02017-4
Lubchenco, J. (2017). Delivering on Science’s Social Contract. Michigan Journal of Sustainability, 5(1). doi: 10.3998/mjs.12333712.0005.106
Moore, A. (2020). Three Models of Democratic Expertise. Perspectives on Politics, 19(2), 553–563. doi: 10.1017/S1537592720002480
Oppenheimer, M., Dale Jamieson, Jessica O’Reilly, Matthew Shindell, Milena Wazeck, and Naomi Oreskes. (2019). Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for Environmental Policy. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226602158.
Oreskes, N. (2015). How Earth Science Has Become a Social Science. Historical Social Research, 40(2), 246–270. doi: 10.12759/hsr.40.2015.2.246-270
Ottinger, G. (2009). Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(2), 244–270. doi: 10.1177/0162243909337121
Pielke, Jr, R. A. (2007). The Honest Broker. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511818110
Pielke, R. A. (2004). When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 405–417. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.004
Rolin, K. (2009). Scientific Knowledge: A Stakeholder Theory. The Social Sciences and Democracy, 62–80. doi: 10.1057/9780230246867_4
Rolin, K. (2016). Values, standpoints, and scientific/intellectual movements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56, 11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.008
Rolin, K. H. (2020). Objectivity, trust and social responsibility. Synthese, 199(1–2), 513–533. doi: 10.1007/s11229-020-02669-1
Schönbauer, S. M. (2024). Environmental Care: How Marine Scientists Relate to Environmental Changes. Minerva, 63(1), 93–113. doi: 10.1007/s11024-024-09538-y
Schütze, P., & Haueis, P. (2022). Philosophy and the Climate Crisis: An Agenda for Change. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4193608
van Eck, C. W., Messling, L., & Hayhoe, K. (2024). Challenging the neutrality myth in climate science and activism. Npj Climate Action, 3(1). doi: 10.1038/s44168-024-00171-9
Wyatt, T. D., Gardner, C. J., & Thierry, A. (2024). Actions speak louder than words: the case for responsible scientific activism in an era of planetary emergency. Royal Society Open Science, 11(7). doi: 10.1098/rsos.240411

(DIS)TRUST
Trust is an attitude that permeates epistemic, social, and political relationships. Involving more than mere reliance, it implies normative expectations grounded in vulnerability. Feminist epistemology has emphasized how one’s social location affects the attribution of trustworthiness and the valuing of one’s credibility, due to power dynamics and systemic inequalities. The vulnerability of communities to climate change and their epistemic dependence on scientific expertise to understand, adapt, and mitigate it make trust a crucial element. Indeed, given climate science’s epistemic authority and institutional power, the literature on trust and climate science addresses for example the moral dimensions of communication as well as problems stemming from ongoing efforts to discredit legitimate and valuable knowledge.

Show references

CARE
Often overlooked in climate discourses, care addresses the emotional and existential dimensions of living within a community and an ecosystem. Feminist philosophers have developed care as a normative and conceptual tool that frames our responsibilities towards each other and the environment we live in, focusing on interdependence, vulnerability, and attentiveness towards the material and non-material needs of who and what surrounds us.

Show references