Economic geography and island life: A contribution to debate

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-149
Author(s):  
David C. Thorns
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Economic Geography ◽  
Housing Markets ◽  
Institutional Context ◽  
Neoclassical Economics ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Social ◽  
Knowledge Economies ◽  
Dominant Paradigm

The possibility of new islands to be discovered/created is raised that might lead to a rethinking of the dominant paradigm within contemporary economics which could provide a richer basis for understanding the social, cultural and institutional context in which markets are embedded. Such an approach, it is argued, would allow a better understanding of the dynamics of change than that currently provided by neoclassical economics. The need for such an expanded understanding is explored by drawing on research into housing markets, knowledge economies and the growing work of social scientists on environmental and climate change.

The Apparent Failure of “Situational Analysis” to Take Hold and an Attempt at Revitalizing It

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 444-464
Author(s):  
Alfonso Palacio-Vera
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Neoclassical Economics ◽  
Situational Analysis ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Social

“Situational Analysis” (SA) constitutes Popper’s methodological proposal for the social sciences. We argue that notwithstanding Popper’s claim that SA is an attempt to extend the methodology of neoclassical economics to the rest of the social sciences, the former is better interpreted as an extension of his view of the “method” of history to the “theoretical” social sciences. The reason is that, unlike neoclassical economics, Popper’s formulation of SA presupposes that social scientists exhibit a “more complete” view of the “logic of the situation” than individual actors do, on average, which implies that the latter’s knowledge is “partially wrong” or “incomplete.”

scholarly journals Rooting carbon dioxide removal research in the social sciences

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 20190138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen Dowell ◽  
Jeff Niederdeppe ◽  
Jamie Vanucchi ◽  
Timur Dogan ◽  
Kieran Donaghy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Climate Change ◽  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Carbon Dioxide Removal ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Climate Change Research ◽  
The Social

Reports from a variety of bodies have highlighted the role that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies and practices must play in order to try to avoid the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change. Research into the feasibility of these technologies is primarily undertaken by scholars in the natural sciences, yet, as we argue in this commentary, there is great value in collaboration between these scholars and their colleagues in the social sciences. Spurred by this belief, in 2019, a university and a non-profit organization organized and hosted a workshop in Washington, DC, intended to bring natural and physical scientists, technology developers, policy professionals and social scientists together to explore how to better integrate social science knowledge into the field of CDR research. The workshop sought to build interdisciplinary collaborations across CDR topics, draft new social science research questions and integrate and exchange disciplinary-specific terminology. But a snowstorm kept many social scientists who had organized the conference from making the trip in person. The workshop went on without them and organizers did the best they could to include the team remotely, but in the age before daily video calls, remote participation was not as successful as organizers had hoped. And thus, a workshop that was supposed to focus on social science integration moved on, without many of the social scientists who organized the event. The social scientists in the room were supposed to form the dominant voice but with so many stuck in a snow storm, the balance of expertise shifted, as it often does when social scientists collaborate with natural and physical scientists. The outcomes of that workshop, lessons learned and opportunities missed, form the basis of this commentary, and they collectively indicate the barriers to integrating the natural, physical and social sciences on CDR. As the need for rapid, effective and successful CDR has only increased since that time, we argue that CDR researchers from across the spectrum must come together in ways that simultaneously address the technical, social, political, economic and cultural elements of CDR development, commercialization, adoption and diffusion if the academy is to have a material impact on climate change in the increasingly limited window we have to address it.

scholarly journals Navigating Bulkeley’s challenge on climate politics and human geography

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Jones
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Climate Change ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Human Geography ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Progressive Politics ◽  
Climate Politics ◽  
The Social

While agreeing with the major tenets of Harriet Bulkeley’s timely and powerful argument for geographers (and social scientists more generally) to engage with climate change, this response raises three provocative challenges that arise from this intervention: the degree to which the epistemological and theoretical bases to these arguments are radical, the nature of the engagement problem in the discipline and, perhaps most importantly, how these arguments can be translated to a ‘progressive politics’. The response argues that there is much further to go in explaining the utility of socio-natural understanding of climate change if those beyond the social sciences and in the wider realm of policy and politics are to be convinced of the power of the approach being advocated. It also argues that geographers are well-positioned to develop the bolder and more interdisciplinary approach needed to achieve the kind of ambitious shift in thinking Bulkeley seeks.

Beyond the technocratic truth to establish eco-development in the uplifted area of the Finnish southwestern shear coast as observed from space

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido J. M. Verstraeten ◽  
Willem W. Verstraeten
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Landsat Imagery ◽  
Natural Laws ◽  
Hierarchical Relations ◽  
The Social ◽  
Complex Phenomena ◽  
Development Paradigm ◽  
Dominant Paradigm

<p>Decisions about preventing further climate change involve human means for obtaining an equal and fair result for all humans. In consequence we have to make room for a complete different discours balancing between natural facts obeying natural laws and social behavior according to Duhem-Quine´s principle. In order to explain complex phenomena such as global warming and the isostatic uplift one should reject any one-hypothesis claim according to Duhem-Quine´s principle.</p><p>Considering climatologic problems as only pure positive scientific matter for making decisions for mankind how to deal with, is a pure essentialist and substantivistic conception of decision making. While climatologic models explain changes globally, the more unpredictable weather concerns rather local scales, implying that decisions must be adapted to the local situation. The unpredictability of some processes is universal but the consequences can be very local and form the boundary conditions of living. Stated otherwise, we do not just live on the planet Earth, but we live in a specific village/town in a specific region/country. </p><p>Contrary to the widely accepted dominant paradigm decision making should not be based on the slogan ‘think global, act local’, but from the device ‘think local, manage the local effects of global warming’. Indeed, worldwide climate change will generally cause raising oceans, but more locally it will restore the former water balance of uplifted shear costs in Sweden and Finland and it affects the small fisher and farmer societies.</p><p>Here we suggest that knowledge of climate changes does not intervene in terms of their universal value such as truth, but under the local horizon of the social practices, artefacts and hierarchical relations with which they are associated. We advocate to reverse the former dominant technical code monopolized by technocracy from dominance of nature to creation of progress of the encroaching new ecosystems that develops out of the original shear coast in south-western Finland. We show based on Landsat imagery that this coast is rapidly changing due to the uplift. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the Eco-Development paradigm may rebalance nature, environment, humans and culture and that it is a valid alternative against the past and present-day socio-economical approach that have accelerated the change of the Earth’s climate, provided the global technocracy´s codes of the dominant paradigm are converted into local adapted social, economic and political codes.</p>

Presidential Address: Start Spreading the News: Illuminating the Effects of Climate Change as a Social Problem

2020 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 605-615
Author(s):  
Nancy J Mezey
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
New York ◽  
New York City ◽  
Social Problem ◽  
Presidential Address ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Sea Levels ◽  
The Social ◽  
Pedagogical Skills ◽  
Rising Sea Levels

Abstract The theme for the 2019 SSSP meetings is a call to sociologists and social scientists to draw on their sociological roots to illuminate the social in all social problems with an eye to solving those problems. The address encourages sociologists to speak as broadly as possible so that the discipline becomes a central voice in larger public discourses. The 2019 SSSP Presidential Address is a call to focus on what is the largest social problem: climate change. After a brief overview of the science of climate change, the address focuses on the anthropogenic causes of climate change and the reasons why climate change is a social justice issue. Looking specifically at rising sea levels, the address then focuses on New York City as an example of the effects of and some responses to climate change. The address concludes with a discussion of how sociologists can and should draw deeply on the discipline’s theoretical roots, empirical tools, and pedagogical skills to illuminate climate change as a social problem.

scholarly journals Review article: Towards a context-driven research: a state-of-the-art review of resilience research on climate change

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 1119-1133
Author(s):  
Ringo Ossewaarde ◽  
Tatiana Filatova ◽  
Yola Georgiadou ◽  
Andreas Hartmann ◽  
Gül Özerol ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Climate Change ◽  
Social Constructivism ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Current State ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
The Social ◽  
Energy Justice

Abstract. The twofold aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the current state of resilience research with regard to climate change in the social sciences and propose a research agenda. Resilience research among social scientists is characterized by much more diversity today than a few decades ago. Different definitions and understandings of resilience appear in publications during the last 10 years. Resilience research increasingly bears the mark of social constructivism, a relative newcomer compared to the more long-standing tradition of naturalism. There are also approaches that are indebted to both “naturalism” and “constructivism”, which, of course, come in many varieties. Based on our overview of recent scholarship, which is far from being exhaustive, we have identified six research avenues that arguably deserve continued attention. They combine naturalist and constructivist insights and approaches so that human agency, reflexivity, and considerations of justice and equity are incorporated into systems thinking research or supplement such research. Ultimately, we believe that the overarching challenge for future research is to ensure that resilience to climate change does not compromise sustainability and considerations of justice (including environmental, climate, and energy justice).

Linguistics: A Rhetor's Guide

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dick Leith
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
Social Formation ◽  
Text Linguistics ◽  
The Social ◽  
Language Study ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
Linguistic Inquiry ◽  
Dominant Paradigm

Abstract: To non-specialists, academic disciplines invariably seem homogeneous, even monolithic. But even a relatively young discipline such as modem linguistics is more diverse in its procedures and concerns than might appear to those working in other fields. In this paper I attempt to show how certain kinds of linguistic inquiry might be relevant to those whose primary concern is rhetoric. I argue that these practices are often opposed to what I call the dominant paradigm in modern linguistics, with its commitment to abstraction and idealization. I discuss first those strands of linguistics, such as discourse analysis, text-linguistics, and stylistics, which tend to take the social formation for granted; I end by considering recent trends in so-called critical language study. Finally, I offer some thoughts on how linguistics may proceed in order to achieve a more programmatic rapprochement with rhetoric.

Value-driven issues throughout the development of sociological theory

2020 ◽  
pp. 147-160
Author(s):  
Gulbarshyn Chepurko ◽  
Valerii Pylypenko
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Social System ◽  
Sociological Theory ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Social Sphere ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Different Levels

The paper examines and compares how the major sociological theories treat axiological issues. Value-driven topics are analysed in view of their relevance to society in times of crisis, when both societal life and the very structure of society undergo dramatic change. Nowadays, social scientists around the world are also witnessing such a change due to the emergence of alternative schools of sociological thought (non-classical, interpretive, postmodern, etc.) and, subsequently, the necessity to revise the paradigms that have been existed in sociology so far. Since the above-mentioned approaches are often used to address value-related issues, building a solid theoretical framework for these studies takes on considerable significance. Furthermore, the paradigm revision has been prompted by technological advances changing all areas of people’s lives, especially social interactions. The global human community, integral in nature, is being formed, and production of human values now matters more than production of things; hence the “expansion” of value-focused perspectives in contemporary sociology. The authors give special attention to collectivities which are higher-order units of the social system. These units are described as well-organised action systems where each individual performs his/her specific role. Just as the role of an individual is distinct from that of the collectivity (because the individual and the collectivity are different as units), so too a distinction is drawn between the value and the norm — because they represent different levels of social relationships. Values are the main connecting element between the society’s cultural system and the social sphere while norms, for the most part, belong to the social system. Values serve primarily to maintain the pattern according to which the society is functioning at a given time; norms are essential to social integration. Apart from being the means of regulating social processes and relationships, norms embody the “principles” that can be applied beyond a particular social system. The authors underline that it is important for Ukrainian sociology to keep abreast of the latest developments in the field of axiology and make good use of those ideas because this is a prerequisite for its successful integration into the global sociological community.

On diversity in the social sciences: Why homogeneous research groups are an ethical mistake

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Nusbaum ◽  
Toby SantaMaria
Keyword(s):  
Minority Groups ◽  
Academic Science ◽  
Research Groups ◽  
Ethical Perspective ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Social Good ◽  
The Social ◽  
Public Responsibility ◽  
Principles Of Justice

The scientific enterprise reflects society at large, and as such it actively disadvantages minority groups. From an ethical perspective, this system is unacceptable as it actively undermines principles of justice and social good, as well as the research principles of openness and public responsibility. Further, minority social scientists lead to better overall scientific products, meaning a diverse scientific body can also be considered an instrumental good. Thus, centering minority voices in science is an ethical imperative. This paper outlines what can be done to actively center these scientists, including changing the way metrics are used to assess the performance of individual scientists and altering the reward structure within academic science to promote heterogenous research groups.

ISLAMIC SOCIAL SCIENCES

1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona Abul Fadl
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Belief Systems ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Social Foundations ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
Human Value ◽  
The Social ◽  
Western Values ◽  
Culture Brokers

The need for a relevant and instrumental body of knowledge that can secure the taskof historical reconstruction in Muslim societies originally inspired the da’wa for the Islamizationof knowledge. The immediate targets for this da’wa were the social sciences for obvious reasons.Their field directly impinges on the organization of human societies and as such carries intothe area of human value and belief systems. The fact that such a body of knowledge alreadyexisted and that the norms for its disciplined pursuit were assumed in the dominant practiceconfronted Muslim scholars with the context for addressing the issues at stake. How relevantwas current social science to Muslim needs and aspirations? Could it, in its present formand emphasis, provide Muslims with the framework for operationalizing their values in theirhistorical present? How instrumental is it in shaping the social foundations vital for the Muslimfuture? Is instrumentality the only criteria for such evaluations? In seeking to answer thesequestions the seeds are sown for a new orientation in the social sciences. This orientationrepresents the legitimate claims and aspirations of a long silent/silenced world culture.In locating the activities of Muslim social scientists today it is important to distinguishbetween two currents. The first is in its formative stages as it sets out to rediscover the worldfrom the perspective of a recovered sense of identity and in terms of its renewed culturalaffinities. Its preoccupations are those of the Muslim revival. The other current is constitutedof the remnants of an earlier generation of modernizers who still retain a faith in the universalityof Western values. Demoralized by the revival, as much as by their own cultural alientation,they seek to deploy their reserves of scholarship and logistics to recover lost ground. Bymodifying their strategy and revalorizing the legacy they hope that, as culture-brokers, theymight be more effective where others have failed. They seek to pre-empt the cultural revivalby appropriating its symbols and reinterpreting the Islamic legacy to make it more tractableto modernity. They blame Orientalism for its inherent fixations and strive to redress its selfimposedlimitations. Their efforts may frequently intersect with those of the Islamizing current,but should clearly not be confused with them. For all the tireless ingenuity, these effortsare more conspicuous for their industry than for their originality. Between the new breadof renovationists and the old guard of ‘modernizers’, the future of an Islamic Social Scienceclearly lies with the efforts of the former.Within the Islamizing current it is possible to distinguish three principal trends. The firstopts for a radical perspective and takes its stand on epistemological grounds. It questionsthe compatibility of the current social sciences on account of their rootedness in the paradigmof the European Enlightenment and its attendant naturalistic and positivist biases. Consistencedemands a concerted e€fort to generate alternative paradigms for a new social science fromIslamic epistemologies. In contrast, the second trend opts for a more pragmatic approachwhich assumes that it is possible to interact within the existing framework of the disciplinesafter adapting them to Islamic values. The problem with modern sciene is ethical, notepistemological, and by recasting it accordingly, it is possible to benefit from its strengthsand curtail its derogatory consequences. The third trend focuses on the Muslim scholar, rather ...

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document