I am Meredith Glaser, and I recently sat down with Dr. Anna Nikolaeva, Associate Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Amsterdam, to discuss her published papers on the “politics of non-knowing” and the “smartification” of cycling data. Anna’s research focuses on urban mobility and the struggles of socio-technical transitions, with a particular interest in the relationship between technology, knowledge, and society. She uses cycling as a case to study these challenges.
In one recent paper, she interviewed 78 professionals working on smart mobility projects in Dublin, Copenhagen, and Amsterdam. Her key finding is that the production of knowledge is not a neutral process, but rather deeply political. And mobility is a particular case because of engrained norms solidly rooted in car-centric planning: prioritizing the car has shaped what knowledge matters and whose knowledge matters. Sustainability transitions challenge this head-on and create “epistemic struggles.”
The aim of her work broadly, and especially is her paper on the “politics of non-knowing”, is to foster more critical conversations on the role of techno-solutionism and pro-innovation bias that underpins knowledge in the practice of transportation and urban planning.
Meredith: I would like to start our discussion with perhaps a key question to lay the foundation. What are “epistemic struggles”?
Anna: Epistemic struggles are essentially debates or tension over whose knowledge counts. They’re about who is seen as an authority—who holds epistemic authority—and who is considered a legitimate or important source of knowledge. These struggles emerge when certain individuals or groups in society feel that their voices aren’t being heard, that their lived experiences are being ignored, or that their perspectives aren’t being reflected in the knowledge produced by official institutions.
Essentially, these are conflicts about knowledge itself: who gets to define what kind of knowledge is important? Whose experiences are considered valid? Who do we assume to be the “typical” traveler or commuter?
Meredith: Could you provide a few examples of epistemic struggles?
Anna: Sure. For example, standardized travel surveys that are done by national research institutes do not capture the diversity of experiences of different people, for various reasons. They flatten complex mobility patterns into simple data points and prioritise commuting, making other everyday mobilities largely invisible, for instance, mobilities related to caring for others or leisure[1]. This focus feeds into planning documents and policies. For instance, in cities like Amsterdam, mobility policy documents barely mention gender. So you can see how this cycle of particular data practices can create a ripple effect.
[1] Sánchez de Madariaga I, Zucchini E (2019) Measuring mobilities of care, a challenge for transport agendas. In: Scholten CL, Joelsson T (eds) Integrating Gender Into Transport Planning: From One to Many Tracks. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.145–173.
Meredith: Why is it important to discuss epistemic struggles and knowledge production in the context of urbanism and mobility?
Anna: Epistemic struggles are everywhere but epistemic struggles are essential in urbanism and mobility because they influence decision-making, prioritization of agendas, and the development of new technologies. With the advent of smart cities, smart mobility, artificial intelligence, and data-driven governance, questioning how knowledge is produced and by whom becomes increasingly critical. New tools can lead to new forms of exclusion and distortion, making it vital to address epistemic struggles and promote inclusive knowledge production.
It’s about recognizing that different people move through cities in different ways, and that those differences matter. And when we overlook or exclude those perspectives, we’re not just missing data—we’re reinforcing a power imbalance in how knowledge is produced and used.
Meredith: You drew a lot on the sociology of knowledge. Can you tell us about what you learned?
Anna: There is this whole field of what’s called ignorance studies that focuses on how institutional power produces knowledge and ignorance. It emphasizes that power can be maintained by creating ignorance. An iconic example is when the tobacco industries claimed no conclusive link between smoking and cancer and that ‘more research is needed’.[1] So this claim of a lack of knowledge about a particular subject continues the status quo. Understanding this dynamic is crucial in addressing epistemic struggles and promoting more equitable knowledge production in mobility.
[1] See e.g. Proctor RN (1995) Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know And Don’t Know About Cancer. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Meredith: A perfect transition to mobility. How are the politics of knowledge interconnected within the context of mobility?
Anna: The politics of knowledge are intertwined in politics of mobility because societal inequalities are often reproduced and reinforced through mobility practices. Different forms of mobility have varying levels of status, resources, access to space, and societal acceptance. Car-centrism prioritizes drivers and automobility which leads to specific politics of knowledge that emphasize technocratic aspects like traffic delays, efficiency. In other words, if we prioritize cars in our cities, it means we prioritize certain kinds of knowledge, a certain lens of looking at urban space and human movement. It also means we ignore or suppress other kinds of knowledge, like active mobility or mobilities of care (e.g. bringing kids to school or daycare, doing grocery shopping etc.)[1]. It’s not non-existent, but that knowledge is less prominent in the ways that actually lead to change.
[1] Nikolaeva A and Shakthi S (2025) Moving towards gender-sensitive urban mobility planning: Unpacking the role of knowledge. Urban Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098025134087
This interplay between politics of mobility and politics of knowledge directly impacts mobility justice. Governments and local authorities use tools like surveys, travel diaries, focus groups, panels, and citizen advisory committees. However, transportation heavily relies on quantitative tools which leads to biases in certain mobility experiences over others, which leads to certain projects funded and prioritized in transport planning. This can negatively impact mobility justice by overlooking the experiences and needs of all sorts of different societal groups.
Meredith: You applied this perspective to cycling and focused on different contexts in your paper. How do epistemic struggles for cycling differ between established cycling cities (Amsterdam and Copenhagen) and emerging cycling cities (Manchester and Dublin)?
Anna: The biggest difference that I found was that in emerging cycling cities, activists tend to be more actively involved in collecting data and engaging in epistemic struggles, driven by a lack of institutional support and a hope that smart technologies can help improve cycling conditions. But in established cycling cities, epistemic struggles are more likely to occur within institutions, as cycling policies and infrastructures are already in place.
Meredith: So epistemic struggles still exist in cycling capitals like Amsterdam and Copenhagen?
Anna: Yes, epistemic struggles still exist in cycling capitals like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, but they tend to occur within institutions rather than between municipalities and activists. Even though these cities have well-established cycling infrastructures and policies, debates about what counts as valid knowledge or expertise continue to shape urban mobility. In these contexts, epistemic struggles are more likely to happen between different factions within institutions as they strive to improve or maintain cycling conditions.
Meredith: Is a goal then, to overcome epistemic struggles in cycling policymaking?
Anna: Instead of trying to overcome or eliminate epistemic struggles, we should actively seek them. If you’re a policymaker and you tell yourself that you don’t face any epistemic struggle or dissenting voices, you should ask yourself if you’ve been inclusive enough in considering different voices, experiences, knowledge, and perspectives. Or have you just closed your eyes and ears to the discord? Epistemic struggles, like struggles for justice, are ongoing, and there is no endpoint. Societies evolve, and new needs arise. In high cycling contexts, some groups and experiences are often ignored or not given enough attention.
For instance, car-centrism still exists, even in Amsterdam it is not dismantled. And various indicators show this, like the space occupied by parked cars. The struggle for space among cyclists, or micromobility users, and other active modes also reflects this issue. Policymakers should continuously seek critical questions and engage in epistemic struggles to ensure inclusivity and address emerging needs.
Meredith: How can governments and local authorities use epistemic justice to address inclusive mobility? What are some common tools used by governments and local authorities to understand citizens’ needs, and how do they impact mobility justice?
Anna: Policy makers and civil servants can promote epistemic justice by seeking diverse representation among policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders, ensuring that the voices, experiences, and values of marginalized groups are integrated into knowledge collection and decision-making processes. It’s not just about ticking a checkbox and saying “mission accomplished.” When we talk about representation, it’s also about genuinely listening. Are we hearing the stories people bring, not just their data points? Are we valuing their entire worldview and values, not just the convenient facts?
Confronting epistemic justice means intentionally holding up a mirror and examining our main knowledge tools that inform our decision making, and then begin to explore. What do these tools ignore or obscure? And how is that?
Thank you Anna for your inspirational work! To learn more, you can read her open-access papers below, or watch Anna speak at a recent lecture series.
- Nikolaeva A (2024a) Smart Cities and (Smart) Cycling: Exploring the Synergies in Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Journal of Urban Technology 0(0). Routledge: 1–21.
- Nikolaeva A (2024b) The politics of non-knowing, smart technology and just mobility transitions: A case study and research agenda. Environment and Planning F. SAGE Publications: 26349825241228591.
- Nikolaeva A and Shakthi S (2025) Moving towards gender-sensitive urban mobility planning: Unpacking the role of knowledge. Urban Studies. SAGE Publications Ltd: 00420980251340871.
