Original title: Critical discourse analysis of perspectives on knowledge and the knowledge society within the Sustainable Development Goals
The researchers examine how the Sustainable Development Goals talk about knowledge and who should shape it. They find that knowledge has only a small place in the main document. Its goals and plans for action lean toward science, technology, and economic growth, while participatory ideas appear more in its vision and strategy. Advice from international groups and civil society included more participatory views, but the final text was shaped strongly by wealthy countries and businesses.
Imagine a neighborhood meeting about how to improve the local park. People bring ideas about access, play, and nature, but the final plan focuses mostly on costs and equipment. In this paper, the meeting stands for the debate around the Sustainable Development Goals, and the final plan stands for their main policy document: different views on knowledge were present, but technical and economic priorities dominated.
The Sustainable Development Goals guide international development policy, so the way they frame knowledge can affect whose expertise shapes action. The analysis finds that economic and technical priorities dominate the final text, even though more participatory views appeared in advice during its drafting.
The abstract describes an analysis of the SDGs' main policy document and some policy advice; it does not establish how the SDGs have been carried out in practice or what effects they have had. It says developed countries and the corporate sector were probably instrumental in excluding more transformational discourses, rather than presenting that influence as certain.
Ask anything about this paper. Answers come from its abstract, and say so when the abstract doesn't cover your question.
Critical discourse analysis of perspectives on knowledge and the knowledge society within the Sustainable Development Goals — Sarah Cummings, Barbara Johanna Regeer, Leah de Haan et al. — Development Policy Review — doi:10.1111/dpr.12296
Abstract licence: CC BY
Explanation generated by Synthesis from the abstract — it is not the original paper.