| 1. |
- Moberg, Christina, et al.
(författare)
-
De unga gör helt rätt när de stämmer staten
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Aftonbladet. - 1103-9000.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- 1 620 forskare och lärare i forskarvärlden: Vi ställer oss bakom Auroras klimatkrav
|
|
| 2. |
- Eckerberg, Katarina, et al.
(författare)
-
Varför brister politikerna när det gäller miljömålen?
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Dagens Nyheter. - 1101-2447.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Vad ska vi svara? Politikernas ambitiösa miljömål uppfylls sällan eller aldrig. När våra elever frågar oss varför blir vi ofta svaret skyldiga. Om politikerna inte vill att väljarna ska dra slutsatsen att de har misslyckats, måste de ange en realistisk väg att nå de uppsatta målen. Det skulle väcka respekt, skriver ledande forskare och samhällsplanerare.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Jerneck, Anne, et al.
(författare)
-
Structuring Sustainability Science
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Sustainability Science. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1862-4057 .- 1862-4065. ; 6:1, s. 69-82
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It is urgent in science and society to address climate change and other sustainability challenges such as biodiversity loss, deforestation, depletion of marine fish stocks, global ill-health, land degradation, land use change and water scarcity. Sustainability science (SS) is an attempt to bridge the natural and social sciences for seeking creative solutions to these complex challenges. In this article, we propose a research agenda that advances the methodological and theoretical understanding of what SS can be, how it can be pursued and what it can contribute. The key focus is on knowledge structuring. For that purpose, we designed a generic research platform organised as a three-dimensional matrix comprising three components: core themes (scientific understanding, sustainability goals, sustainability pathways); cross-cutting critical and problem- solving approaches; and any combination of the sustainability challenges above. As an example, we insert four sustainability challenges into the matrix (biodiversity loss, climate change, land use changes, water scarcity). Based on the matrix with the four challenges, we discuss three issues for advancing theory and methodology in SS: how new synergies across natural and social sciences can be created; how integrated theories for understanding and responding to complex sustainability issues can be developed; and how theories and concepts in economics, gender studies, geography, political science and sociology can be applied in SS. The generic research platform serves to structure and create new knowledge in SS and is a tool for exploring any set of sustainability challenges. The combined critical and problem- solving approach is essential.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
