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

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Jones

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.

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 8335
Author(s):  
Jasmina Nedevska

Climate change litigation has emerged as a powerful tool as societies steer towards sustainable development. Although the litigation mainly takes place in domestic courts, the implications can be seen as global as specific climate rulings influence courts across national borders. However, while the phenomenon of judicialization is well-known in the social sciences, relatively few have studied issues of legitimacy that arise as climate politics move into courts. A comparatively large part of climate cases have appeared in the United States. This article presents a research plan for a study of judges’ opinions and dissents in the United States, regarding the justiciability of strategic climate cases. The purpose is to empirically study how judges navigate a perceived normative conflict—between the litigation and an overarching ideal of separation of powers—in a system marked by checks and balances.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 20190138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen Dowell ◽  
Jeff Niederdeppe ◽  
Jamie Vanucchi ◽  
Timur Dogan ◽  
Kieran Donaghy ◽  
...  

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.


Author(s):  
Ester Gisbert Alemany

Architects and urban planners have traditionally considered social sciences to learn their tools, particularly the ones that allow them to analyse and describe the environments and the people for whom they work. This has led architects to develop better tools of observation and description of the social realm and not only the material one. Nevertheless, most of the times this interdisciplinary approach has identified social sciences, and specially anthropology, with ethnography. This paper departs from the critique of this identification made by anthropologist Tim Ingold and focuses in what he proposes is the core method of anthropology, participant observation. Then it reviews several recent proposals of social scientists who are searching for a non-representational more future oriented discipline. Which is an aim more related to that of architects. This paper tries to imagine how this transdisciplinary practice could look like.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 1119-1133
Author(s):  
Ringo Ossewaarde ◽  
Tatiana Filatova ◽  
Yola Georgiadou ◽  
Andreas Hartmann ◽  
Gül Özerol ◽  
...  

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).


1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona Abul Fadl

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 ...


Author(s):  
Mats Alvesson ◽  
Yiannis Gabriel ◽  
Roland Paulsen

Against a generalized loss of meaning in society, social scientists find it hard to undertake relevant research that addresses problems facing our world. Science has turned from a vocation aimed at improving the lot of humanity to a careerist game dominated by publishing hits in starred journals. Instrumental rewards replace the passion for discovery and the intrinsic quest for knowledge. Competition among academics and academic institutions, such as journals, universities, and professional bodies, is not intrinsically harmful. Competition in the social sciences, however, is currently resulting in large quantities of formulaic publications, increasing specialization, faddishness, opportunism, and a general ironing out of originality and relevance. Academic authorship and the voice of individual scholars is wiped out as most papers are co-authored by several researchers, each a specialist in his or her area. The result is a devaluation of scholarship and a privileging of technical expertise in narrow disciplinary areas.


Author(s):  
Mats Alvesson ◽  
Yiannis Gabriel ◽  
Roland Paulsen

This chapter introduces ‘the problem’ of meaningless research in the social sciences. Over the past twenty years there has been an enormous growth in research publications, but never before in the history of humanity have so many social scientists written so much to so little effect. Academic research in the social sciences is often inward looking, addressed to small tribes of fellow researchers, and its purpose in what is increasingly a game is that of getting published in a prestigious journal. A wide gap has emerged between the esoteric concerns of social science researchers and the pressing issues facing today’s societies. The chapter critiques the inaccessibility of the language used by academic researchers, and the formulaic qualities of most research papers, fostered by the demands of the publishing game. It calls for a radical move from research for the sake of publishing to research that has something meaningful to say.


1949 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Easton Rothwell

A PROJECT of collaborative research concerning major world trends affecting international relations has been launched this year at the Hoover Institute and Library. This project has been made possible by a three-year grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.1Beneath the original planning for the project lay the conviction born of wartime experience, that a deeper understanding of the dynamics of international relations could be obtained by pooling the contributions of the social sciences and related disciplines and by taking account of practical experience in the international field. The need for new and more penetrating approaches to international relations had been put by Arnold Toynbee in a few challenging words: “There is nothing to prevent our Western Civilization from following historical precedent, if it chooses, by committing social suicide. But we are not doomed to make history repeat itself; it is open to us through our own efforts, to give history, in our case, some new unprecedented turn.” Natural scientists, as well as social scientists are agreed that any “new unprecedented turn” must be sought in deeper understanding of relations among people and among nations.


1988 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Nicholson

The Economic and Social Research Council recently published a Report commissioned from a committee chaired by Professor Edwards, a psychiatrist, so that the Council, and the social science community in general, might know what was good and bad in British social sciences, and where the promising future research opportunities lie over the next decade. Boldly called ‘Horizons and Opportunities in the Social Sciences’, the Report condensed the wisdom of social scientists, both British and foreign, and concludes with a broadly but not uncritically favourable picture of the British scene.


2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Healy

Following work by James Coleman and Pierre Bourdieu in the 1980s, social scientists from different disciplinary backgrounds have engaged in a debate about the meaning and application of social capital. Questions arise about the coherence, novelty and analytical purchase of the term: there is a risk of overstretching the concept to include too much. Moreover, empirical measures and proxy variables are only very approximately matched to the underlying concept(s). Some applications of the concept lump together different strands of social behaviour and attitude and treats these as universally equivalent or ‘outside’ specific cultures, institutional settings, historical contexts and power structures. It is suggested that these problems cannot be entirely resolved and have parallel examples in all areas of empirical research in the social sciences. However, suggestions are made for greater trans-disciplinary research, dialogue and connection to policy and community practice in an Irish context. We can sum up our position as follows. Social capital has several adolescent characteristics: it is neither tidy nor mature; it can be abused, analytically and politically; its future is unpredictable; but it offers much promise.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document