Community Contribution #5

Greenwashing, Epistemic Bubbles, and Authentic Inclusion in PLNs

For this week’s blog post, I want to focus on greenwashing, epistemic bubbles, and authentic inclusion in PLNs. As a person who studies biology, my Personal Learning Network (PLN) is critical for gathering, evaluating, and sharing knowledge across digital spaces. I want my PLN to help me evaluate environmental claims, not simply reinforce what sounds scientific. I value evidence-based learning, but I feel that an inclusive network also requires examining whose knowledge I recognize as credible. I think examining greenwashing, epistemic bubbles, and Two-Eyed Seeing could help me consider how my PLN can support more critical thinking and intentional learning.

Greenwashing happens when companies, influencers, or accounts use misleading or exaggerated environmental claims to make products or practices appear more sustainable than they actually are. In her TEDx talk, Soxbo explains how a piece of clothing that contains 20% recycled polyester can be marketed as ‘green,’ which helped me see how one environmental feature can create a misleading impression of the whole product’s sustainability (TEDx Talks, 2022). I think the most important question for my own PLN is not whether a claim sounds convincing, but whether I have investigated it before circulating it. 

The article by Nguyen (2020) differentiates epistemic bubbles, which exclude voices through omission, from echo chambers, which actively undermine trust in outsiders (like researchers or scientists). I think that greenwashing can help sustain an epistemic bubble. For example, if my feed repeatedly circulates a company’s environmental claims through ads without independent research or different perspectives, the recurrence could create confidence within a group without the full coverage of the issue. I think the problem that arises is that it’s not just whether individual posts are accurate, but whether my network leaves some important questions unasked. When I see products advertised as ‘made with recycled materials,’ I sometimes assume they are better for the environment without questioning how much recycled material the product contains or what other environmental impacts are left out.

A different challenge presents itself with echo chambers. If a network discredits outside sources in advance, when counterevidence is introduced, this may not change people’s beliefs. This makes me think about my own approach to credibility. Do I reject a claim because the evidence is weak, or because the source is unfamiliar? At the same time, openness cannot mean treating all claims as equally credible. I need to distinguish between carefully evaluating and just automatically dismissing claims. 

In my own PLN, I will actively try to practice Two-Eyed Seeing (Bartlett et al., 2012), a principle that encourages evaluating different ways of knowing side by side rather than prioritizing just one. This framework brings together the strengths of Indigenous and Western knowledges rather than treating one as the only legitimate foundation for learning. In my own biology PLN, this challenges me to consider whether I automatically trust information just because it uses familiar scientific terms. I think that Moore’s (2016) discussion of inclusion also makes me consider the difference between sharing a space and participating meaningfully within it. If I were to just add Indigenous-led knowledge, this would not demonstrate authentic inclusion. I would need to engage with the knowledge in context, acknowledge its sources, and consider how it changes the questions I ask. Moving forward, I want to see if I can identify an environmental claim in my feed and try to see whose perspectives are present and whose are missing. I would then try to find relevant research from multiple perspectives, including Indigenous resources. This would make this curation an active learning process instead of a display of diversity. 

A question for you: Is there an environmental claim that you have encountered that seemed credible at first?

References

Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-Eyed Seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 331–340.

Moore, S. (2016). One Without the Other: Stories of Unity Through Diversity and Inclusion. Portage & Main Press.

Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141–161.

Soxbo, M. (1670605684). Have you been fooled by greenwashing? [Video recording] https://www.ted.com/talks/maria_soxbo_have_you_been_fooled_by_greenwashing