| 1. |
- Karlsson, Lennart, 1947-
(författare)
-
Arbetarrörelsen, Folkets Hus och offentligheten i Bromölla 1905-1960
- 2009
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the People’s House in Bromölla as an arena for a plebeian public sphere. More specific, the analysis revolves around how the labour movement created a plebeian public sphere, the construction of the very arena and the activities there, including study circles, labour library, theatre plays, film showings, dance evenings and other amusements as parts of adult education among the working class people. It also comprises examinations of the labour movement’s acting in the local political arena, the labour movement’s connections with the local bourgeoisie on matters concerning politics and the People’s House. The main theoretical perspective is based on Jürgen Habermas’ theory of bourgeois public sphere, reformulated to a plebeian public sphere. The adult education in study circles mainly focused on subjects related to the work in the local politics and in the trade union, i.e. for the activities in the public sphere. These parts of the adult education were primarily a matter for the male part of the labour movement. This mirrors the situation in politics and in the trade union, where foremost men were engaged. Beside the trade union and political studies, subjects like Swedish, English, Esperanto, mathematics and literature were common. From time to time socialism and Marxism were studied. The women mainly studied humanistic subjects with individual development and hold thus the vision of the education ideologists within the labour movement. In the 1940’s the study circles decreased, and finally, in the end of the 1950’s almost ceased. Despite this the education did not cease, but were replaced by music, singing, dancing and machine sewing courses arranged by commercial companies and aesthetic associations. The People’s House was from the beginning open even for associations outside the labour movement. In the 1940’s and, in particularly, the 1950’s the People’s House became an assembly hall for a huge range of associations. Among the tenants were Free Church parishes, athletic associations, hobby associations, temperance societies, political parties from left to right, trade unions, authorities, companies, and the municipal of Bromölla. People’s house was also a place for wedding and birthday celebrations and other private parties. Among the more frequent tenants were Free Churches and music, singing and athletic associations, beside Bromölla municipal, which were a permanent tenant, for instance for the municipal library. The amount of associations from outside the labour movement among the tenants exceeded for some years in the end of 1950’s the labour movement’s meetings. This cross class policy was a conscious strategy by the People’s House association, in order to be a cultural institution for all inhabitants in Bromölla. The municipal council of Bromölla was even a part of this policy when subsidizing the People’s House association. It was in accordance with the cross class and consensus policy which the social democratic movement by this time was an exponent of. The People’s House in Bromölla was thus an arena not only for the labour movement, but also for the entire society.
|
|
| 2. |
- Olsson, Lennart, et al.
(författare)
-
A Social Science Perspective on Resilience
- 2016
-
Ingår i: The Routledge Handbook of International Resilience. - 9781138784321 - 9781315765006 ; , s. 49-62
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 3. |
- Olsson, Lennart, et al.
(författare)
-
Ethics of Probabilistic Extreme Event Attribution in Climate Change Science : A Critique
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Earth's Future. - 2328-4277. ; 10:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The question whether a single extreme climate event, such as a hurricane or heatwave, can be attributed to human induced climate change has become a vibrant field of research and discussion in recent years. Proponents of the most common approach (probabilistic event attribution) argue for using single event attribution for advancing climate policy, not least in the context of loss and damages, while critics are raising concerns about inductive risks which may result in misguided policies. Here, we present six ethical predicaments, rooted in epistemic choices of single event attribution for policy making, with a focus on problems related to loss and damage. Our results show that probabilistic event attribution is particularly sensitive to these predicaments, rendering the choice of method value laden and hence political. Our review shows how the putatively apolitical approach becomes political and deeply problematic from a climate justice perspective. We also suggest that extreme event attribution (EEA) is becoming more and more irrelevant for projecting loss and damages as socio-ecological systems are increasingly destabilized by climate change. We conclude by suggesting a more causality driven approach for understanding loss and damage, that is, less prone to the ethical predicaments of EEA.
|
|
| 4. |
- Olsson, Lennart, et al.
(författare)
-
Why resilience is unappealing to social science : Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Science Advances. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 2375-2548. ; 1:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Resilience is often promoted as a boundary concept to integrate the social and natural dimensions of sustainability. However, it is a troubled dialogue from which social scientists may feel detached. To explain this, we first scrutinize the meanings, attributes, and uses of resilience in ecology and elsewhere to construct a typology of definitions. Second, we analyze core concepts and principles in resilience theory that cause disciplinary tensions between the social and natural sciences (system ontology, system boundary, equilibria and thresholds, feedback mechanisms, self-organization, and function). Third, we provide empirical evidence of the asymmetry in the use of resilience theory in ecology and environmental sciences compared to five relevant social science disciplines. Fourth, we contrast the unification ambition in resilience theory with methodological pluralism. Throughout, we develop the argument that incommensurability and unification constrain the interdisciplinary dialogue, whereas pluralism drawing on core social scientific concepts would better facilitate integrated sustainability research.
|
|
| 5. |
- Persson, Johannes, et al.
(författare)
-
Harnessing local knowledge for scientific knowledge production : challenges and pitfalls within evidence-based sustainability studies
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Ecology and Society. - 1708-3087. ; 23:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The calls for evidence-based public policy making have increased dramatically in the last decades, and so has the interest in evidence-based sustainability studies. But questions remain about what “evidence” actually means in different contexts and if the concept travels well between different domains of application. Some of the most relevant questions asked by sustainability studies are not, and in some cases cannot be, directly answered by relying on research evidence of the kinds favored by the evidence-based movement. Therefore, sustainability studies must also harness other forms of knowledge, based on forms of practical experience. How to integrate these two sources of knowledge is one of the most fundamental epistemological and practical problems society is facing. Identifying what kind of practical experience and research evidence we need to integrate is another challenging question. We draw on examples from our research in the Global South and suggest an efficient principle, problem-feeding, for harnessing practical experience within an adapted version of evidence-based sustainability studies.
|
|
| 6. |
- Persson, Johannes, et al.
(författare)
-
The interdisciplinary decision problem : Popperian optimism and Kuhnian pessimism in forestry
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Ecology and Society. - 1708-3087. ; 23:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Interdisciplinary research in the fields of forestry and sustainability studies often encounters seemingly incompatible ontological assumptions deriving from natural and social sciences. The perceived incompatibilities might emerge from the epistemological and ontological claims of the theories or models directly employed in the interdisciplinary collaboration, or they might be created by other epistemological and ontological assumptions that these interdisciplinary researchers find no reason to question. In this paper we discuss the benefits and risks of two possible approaches, Popperian optimism and Kuhnian pessimism, to interdisciplinary knowledge integration where epistemological and ontological differences between the sciences involved can be expected.
|
|
| 7. |
- Persson, Johannes, et al.
(författare)
-
Toward an alternative dialogue between the social and natural sciences
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Ecology and Society. - 1708-3087. ; 23:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Interdisciplinary research within the field of sustainability studies often faces incompatible ontological assumptions deriving from natural and social sciences. The importance of this fact is often underrated and sometimes leads to the wrong strategies. We distinguish between two broad approaches in interdisciplinarity: unificationism and pluralism. Unificationism seeks unification and perceives disciplinary boundaries as conventional, representing no long-term obstacle to progress, whereas pluralism emphasizes more ephemeral and transient interdisciplinary connections and underscores the autonomy of the disciplines with respect to one another. Both approaches have their merits and pitfalls. Unification runs the risk of scientific imperialism, while pluralism can result in insurmountable barriers between disciplines. We made a comparison of eight distinct interdisciplinary attempts at integration of knowledge across social and natural sciences. The comparison was carried out as four pairwise comparisons: environmental economics versus ecological economics, environmental history versus historical ecology, resilience theory versus political ecology, and socio-biology versus actor-network theory. We conclude by showing that none of these prominent eight interdisciplinary fields in and of itself manages to provide, in a satisfactory way, such an integrated understanding of sustainability. We argue for pluralism and advocate complex ways of articulating divergent ontological assumptions. This is not equivalent to pursuing knowledge unification either through scientific imperialism or by catering to the requirements of narrow practical utility. It means prioritizing interdisciplinary integration by simultaneously acknowledging the role of societal and natural factors in accounting for sustainability issues.
|
|
| 8. |
- Thorén, Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
A pluralist approach to epistemic dilemmas in event attribution science
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Climatic Change. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0165-0009 .- 1573-1480. ; 169:1-2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In recent years, a dispute has arisen within detection and attribution science concerning the appropriate methodology for associating individual weather events with anthropogenic climate change. In recent contributions, it has been highlighted that this conflict is seemingly misconstrued even by those participating in it and actually concerns a mixture of first and second order so-called inductive risk considerations—in short, it is about values and the role values should have in science. In this paper, we analyze this methodological conflict and examine the inductive risk considerations and argue that there is also another dimension to consider with respect to values that have to do with what detection and attribution science is for. We suggest a framework for understanding this as a kind of problem-feeding situation and thus an issue of problem–solution coordination between different contexts, where the problem is solved versus where the solution is put to use. This has important implications, not least for whether we should understand this conflict as a genuine methodological one or not.
|
|
| 9. |
- Thorén, Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Is resilience a normative concept?
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Resilience - International Policies, Practices and Discourses. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2169-3293. ; 6:2, s. 112-128
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this paper, we engage with the question of the normative content of the resilience concept. The issues are approached in two consecutive steps. First, we proceed from a narrow construal of the resilience concept – as the ability of a system to absorb a disturbance – and show that under an analysis of normative concepts as evaluative concepts resilience comes out as descriptive. In the second part of the paper, we argue that (1) for systems of interest (primarily social systems or system with a social component) we seem to have options with respect to how they are described and (2) that this matters for what is to be taken as a sign of resilience as opposed to a sign of the lack of resilience for such systems. We discuss the implications of this for how the concept should be applied in practice and suggest that users of the resilience concept face a choice between versions of the concept that are either ontologically or normatively charged.
|
|
