Global knowledge continues to flow along unequal and often invisible hierarchies. The concept of epistemic injustice highlights the ethical and moral consequences of such asymmetries, showing how certain groups’ knowledge is undervalued, with implications for careers, wellbeing, and social recognition. This paper examines how knowledge is constructed, contested, and maintained across universities, research institutes, cultures, languages, and geopolitical contexts. Extending beyond postcolonial frameworks, we explore a variety of contexts in which epistemic marginalization shapes knowledge and authority. Adopting a geo-epistemic perspective, we show how entrenched biases influence what counts as legitimate knowledge and who gets to decide, while also revealing constraints faced by scholars across diverse settings. This approach supports rethinking expertise, confronting exclusionary norms, and cultivating a more inclusive, dialogical, and globally aware academic practice.

What can geographers offer society in an era increasingly defined by demands for measurable research impact and institutional accountability? Higher education institutions remain central sites where knowledge is produced, circulated, taught, and evaluated.  Over the past decades, however, a growing body of scholarship has raised substantial criticism of how research impact and knowledge exchange are assessed. Existing critiques point to the distortive effects of performance-based metrics on academic work, the rise of competitive accountability cultures within universities, and the risk that knowledge practices become oriented toward measurable outputs rather than intellectual or societal value. Others emphasize how such regimes may undermine academic freedom, hinder meaningful knowledge co-creation, disadvantage early-career researchers, and obscure the power relations embedded in evaluation systems. While these critiques are compelling, they often remain fragmented and rarely consider the spatial conditions under which knowledge is produced, legitimized, and valued. As a result, an important dimension is missing from current debates: the geographical context in which research evaluation regimes operate. This paper argues that integrating a geographical perspective can provide a more systemic understanding of the value conflicts embedded in contemporary research evaluation. To address this gap, we draw on insights from the geographies of knowledge approach, which examines how ideas emerge, circulate, and gain or lose authority across places and scales. This perspective brings together two inseparable dimensions: geography, understood as an analytical lens attentive to place, scale, and spatial relations; and knowledge, understood as socially processed information that acquires legitimacy and authority within particular institutional and societal contexts. Together, these dimensions allow us to analyze how evaluation regimes travel, how their norms are interpreted locally, and how different spatial contexts shape their consequences. Drawing on illustrative examples from Nordic, Continental European, and African contexts, we demonstrate how research evaluation regimes interact with diverse academic traditions and institutional histories, generating distinct value conflicts and forms of epistemic injustice. By foregrounding these spatial dynamics, a geography of knowledge perspective enables a broader understanding of why research evaluation regimes produce uneven outcomes across contexts and how their societal consequences unfold. Ultimately, we argue that geography provides a crucial lens for understanding the spatially embedded nature of research evaluation, and for revealing both the value conflicts and epistemic risks that accompany the restlessness created by research evaluation regimes. 

Higher education institutions are central sites where knowledge is anchored, produced, taught, evaluated, and recognized. Yet the spatial and geographical conditions under which knowledge acquires legitimacy, utility, and authority are rarely examined systematically. This special issue examines geographies of knowledge as a field of inquiry that brings together two inseparable dimensions: (1) geographies, understood as spatial and geographical perspectives through which societies are analyzed, where place, location, scale, and spatial relations matter; (2) knowledge, understood here as socially processed information that has acquired legitimacy, utility, and often authority. In this context, universities, and by extension higher education, occupy a unique role in processes of legitimization, the effects of which can influence society in a wide range of subtle ways. Philosophically and theoretically, by bringing these dimensions together, the special issue advances a geo-epistemic perspective in which knowledge is never placeless or neutral, but always produced, validated, and extended through specific spatial, material, institutional, and relational arrangements. Knowledge is anchored in particular locations and systems, yet often claims relevance or authority “elsewhere,” across regions, nations, and even planetary scales. Here, the geographies of knowledge draw on spatial theory, including an understanding of space as a concept in which the perceived (physical and material), the conceived (ideological and representational), and the lived (experiential and symbolic) intertwine. Accordingly, this issue emphasizes that knowledge, and access to knowledge, are spatially stratified. No single actor or institution can grasp the totality of knowledge; yet universities and higher education institutions must interact, coordinate, and legitimize knowledge across sites. There is a central philosophical tension within the geographies of knowledge, particularly in the context of the university and higher education: decision-making proceeds in the absence of epistemic totality and is spatially differentiated. Put differently, no single knowledge regime can legitimately claim epistemological primacy, and the validity of knowledge regimes varies depending on locality. Nevertheless, due to the requirement of legitimization within the discursive space of the university, even small decisions can have far-reaching consequences. This is precisely because such decisions are continually made without full knowledge of their effects, whether in times of crisis or not. 

The contributions in this special issue explore both the 'here' of knowledge production and the 'there' of recognition, circulation, and impact, including the emergent properties that arise when teaching, research, funding, evaluation, policy, and societal engagement are combined at scale. The issue addresses: (a) Spatial stratification of knowledge: how the value, legitimacy, and authority of knowledge vary depending on where it is produced, and how location shapes what is recognized as “good” research or teaching; (b) Local systems and global claims: how locally anchored knowledge becomes aggregated, universalized, or mobilized across contexts, and what unintended consequences, synergies, or tensions emerge in the process; (c) Material and infrastructural dimensions: how funding systems, evaluation regimes, publishing infrastructures, and digital platforms anchor and spatially stratify knowledge; (d) Language, translation, and circulation: how dominant languages and publication venues shape the movement of knowledge across sites of recognition and authority; (e) Policy mobility and spatial imaginaries: how ideas such as “excellence,” “impact,” or “world-class universities” travel between contexts and reorganize institutional priorities and practices. The contributions are conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and empirical. All engage explicitly with higher education as a site of knowledge production, teaching, governance, and evaluation. They clarify how knowledge is spatially anchored, stratified, extended, or constrained, and reflect on both the intended and unintended effects of institutional arrangements. Conceptual and meta-perspective contributions advance or critically reflect on geo-epistemic or spatial frameworks relevant to higher education research.

This paper lays out how knowledge is spatially constituted, circulated, and contested acrossinstitutions, scales, and epistemic traditions. It advances the argument that knowledge is neverplaceless, but emerges through historically and geographically situated infrastructures, practices, andpower relations. Bringing together geography and higher education studies, the issue explores howepistemic authority is produced through uneven global networks, from universities and policyregimes to local and situated encounters. It highlights three intersecting dimensions: epistemicinfrastructures and governance; meta-geographical and ontological framings of knowledge; andsituated practices of legitimacy and mobility. Across diverse empirical contributions spanningmultiple regions and institutional contexts, the papers demonstrate how evaluation systems,territorial imaginaries, and lived academic mobilities shape what counts as valid knowledge. Reconceptualizing universities as spatially embedded institutions positions geographies of knowledgeas critical lens understanding epistemic justice, inequality, and transformations in higher education.

Vår fallstudie undersöker en aspekt av den svenska utbildningsreformen 2023–2024, som innebär att kognitionsvetenskap ska integreras i den offentliga lärarutbildningen. Reformen presenteras som en kvalitetsförbättring baserad på evidensbaserade metoder med fokus på minne och informationsbearbetning. Med ett kunskapsgeografiskt perspektiv belyser vi de rumsliga konsekvenser som denna förändring kan medföra. I analysen använder vi geografiska begrepp som plats, skala och hållbarhet samt processer som diffusion, kumulativ kausalitet och periferisering. Vi utgår även från perspektiv på rumslig rättvisa, deterritorialisering och representation för att undersöka hur utbildningskunskap produceras, legitimeras och fördelas mellan olika platser. Vi argumenterar för att positioneringen av kognitionsvetenskap som ett centralt kunskapsfält kan bidra till att andra pedagogiska traditioner ges mindre utrymme och att det institutionella handlingsutrymmet begränsas. Analysen indikerar att reformen kan förstärka skillnader mellan resursstarka universitet och mindre institutioner. Genom att endast i begränsad utsträckning beakta geografiska och institutionella förutsättningar riskerar reformen att inte fullt ut uppnå sina kvalitetssäkringsmål.

This study critically examines a contested peer review process initiated by a municipal organization in response to a transdisciplinary research report produced by a research institute. Through a systematic framework analysis of 278 peer review comments, the study reveals patterns of misunderstanding, epistemic conflict, and attempts at institutional censorship. The comments, largely critical, frequently misrepresented the purpose, methodology, and metaphysical basis of the report, reflecting tensions between qualitative research norms and bureaucratic expectations. Findings show that many comments aimed not at improving the work but at controlling its narrative – demonstrating testimonial and hermeneutical injustice, where certain knowers and ways of knowing were delegitimized. A significant portion of the critique revolved around image protection and legal threats, exposing attempts to constrain academic freedom and silence critical voices. The study highlights how institutional interests can distort peer review into a tool of epistemic control, undermining academic integrity. By foregrounding these dynamics, the chapter contributes to ongoing debates on epistemic justice, power in knowledge production, and the ethical responsibilities of partners in politically sensitive transdisciplinary collaborations.

This position paper argues for the introduction of a philosophy of research impact, as an invitation to think deeply about the implications of the impact agenda. It delves into the transformative influence of prioritizing the end-product of the research journey over the entire knowledge production process. We argue that the prevalence of research impact assessment in Western research ecosystems has reshaped various facets of research, extending from funding proposals to the overarching goals of research agendas, assessment regimes and promotion structures. Through self-reflective analysis, this position paper critically assesses the consequences of this paradigm shift. Utilizing perspectives from the UK, Poland, Sweden, and Finland, we explore tensions, conflicts, opportunities, and viabilities arising from such a shift in the teleological purpose of research. This selection of countries offers a spectrum, ranging from early adopters of impact assessment regimes to those where such evaluation is largely absent as of now, and its intermediaries. Moreover, our examination extends across different disciplinary foci, including allied health, business and management studies, earth science, human geography, and history. Our findings suggest a discernible alteration in the fundamental logic of research, where the focus shifts from checks and balances geared towards the advancement of knowledge, towards other supposedly more important goals. Here research is merely cast as an instrumental means to achieve broader societal, political, economic, environmental (etc.) goals. Additionally, we observe that as the formalization of research impact evaluation intensifies, there are diminishing degrees of freedom for scholars to challenge contemporary power structures and to think innovatively within their research ecosystem.

A ritual can be understood as a shared and repeated practice, framed by belief structures and oriented towards purposes. Universities are dense assemblages of such rituals: performance reviews, project reports, examinations, accreditation procedures, and student evaluations, to mention only a few. These practices may appear perfunctory or even trivial at the individual level; collectively and longitudinally, they play a decisive role in shaping hierarchy, legitimation, professional identity, and agency within higher education institutions. Our here-presented argument draws perspectives from the geographies of knowledge to examine how meaning, purpose, and agency are produced and circulated through shared educational practices. In this sense, agency is understood as relational and collective, emerging from the interplay between individuals, institutional structures, and imagined educational futures across time and space. We apply this analytical perspective to scrutinize geography teacher education, which exemplifies the second-order nature of some educational rituals in higher education: academic teachers educate (first order) future teachers, who will in turn educate future citizens (second order). This recursive structure makes visible how agency is transmitted and transformed between scales. Examined across three interconnected scales (local, national, and global), the ritual of geography education reveals both tensions and possibilities for collective agency. Locally, teaching and learning are shaped by situated interactions between teachers and students, including diverse motivations, ways of knowing, and pedagogical challenges. Nationally, geography education is embedded within compulsory education systems that aim to cultivate democratic citizenship, civic responsibility, and shared values, often through claims to factual authority. Globally, geography education is increasingly framed as a key avenue for developing holistic understandings towards addressing planetary challenges, particularly in relation to preventing and mitigating the adverse effects of anthropogenic climate change. We propose a five-step model to shape the ritual of geography education across educational levels, from primary schooling to higher education. Our model foregrounds collective academic agency by emphasizing: (1) inculturation into disciplinary awareness; (2) student progression supported by teacher scaffolding; (3) active integration and passive connection towards ways of knowing; (4) identifying relevance through critical questioning and engagement; and (5) maintaining a meta-pedagogical stance open to ethical reflection. We argue that the cultivation of geographical agency needs to move from merely understanding the world towards preparation for being in the world. As the world is increasingly unknowable yet still demands action and care.

This chapter argues that the global diffusion of UK-inspired research evaluation models, particularly the British Impact Evaluation Regime (BIER), introduces subtle yet powerful forms of epistemic injustice across diverse academic contexts. The transnational adoption of BIER reshapes knowledge production by enforcing premature standards of “impact” rooted in utilitarian and Anglophone assumptions. Through comparative case studies from the Nordic countries, continental Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, we identify a structurally distinct form of epistemic injustice: epistemic pre-emption, where ideas are denied the temporal, institutional, and conceptual space to develop before being recognized as knowledge. BIER interacts with local academic cultures and historical legacies in different ways. In the Nordic countries, diffuse pressures redirect research toward short-term, market-driven outputs. In continental Europe, BIER clashes with post-communist norms, producing superficial compliance and marginalizing socially engaged scholarship. In African contexts, externally imposed criteria often reinforce colonial hierarchies, privileging foreign evaluative logics while silencing local knowledge systems. Across these cases, epistemic pre-emption generates hidden geographies of exclusion and reshapes what counts as legitimate knowledge. We advocate for pluralistic, context-sensitive evaluation frameworks that make their assumptions explicit and allow diverse epistemologies to thrive, supporting slow, critical, and locally grounded knowledge production.

Educational reforms have wide-reaching consequences, as they shape and structure future citizens by equipping them with the capacities to engage in an increasingly complex world. In particular, this case study examines the 2023–2024 Swedish education reform, which mandates the integration of cognitive science into public school teacher training.  While the reform is presented as a technical enhancement of educational quality through evidence-based methods (e.g., memory and information processing), this study applies a geographies-of-knowledge lens to uncover the spatial and epistemic tensions inherent in such a transition. By analyzing the reform through classical geographical concepts (place, scale, sustainability), processes (diffusion, cumulative causation, peripheralization), and critical frameworks (spatial justice, deterritorialization, representation), the study seeks to explore how educational knowledge is produced, legitimized, and unevenly distributed across space. The findings suggest that the categorization of cognitive science as a fundamental field may marginalize alternative pedagogical traditions and place pressures on institutional autonomy. The analysis further indicates that the reform could exacerbate spatial inequalities between well-resourced central universities and more peripheral institutions. Ultimately, the paper argues that by overlooking the geographical and institutional contexts in which the reform is implemented, it may fall short of its quality-assurance objectives, with possible implications including increased institutional strain, teacher burnout, and further peripheralization of diverse educational epistemologies.