In recent weeks it seems that attention is being given to the idea that while we have a certain level of understanding of the physical, chemical and biological processes around climate change, in order to change what’s happening, we need to look at the social systems which are contributing.
A few days ago Nature’s Climate Feedback blog talked about the need for more social science in climate change: IHDP: should 90% of climate change research be social science?. It started from the keynote of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), quoting Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research.
Another recent article in Seed Magazine: The Last Experiment, also argues for more social science to be used in climate change research and development initiatives.
“One needs social science at the absolute center of the strategic decisions being made in this area. It has to be on an equal footing with the natural sciences, with engineering, with economic analyses,” Fischhoff argues. “If it’s at the end, then it’s too late to shape the policies in ways that will have any meaningful impact.” To fix this, Fischhoff envisions an NIH-like social-science corps, a “substantial institution that would provide social-sciences resources for people willing to take these issues seriously.” If legitimate and properly funded, it could finally attract more top scientists, the kind of people who are “more concerned with making this work than publishing another limited disciplinary paper,” as he puts it.
Though it’s too early to tell, the sleeping giant of government funding may be stirring. Social scientists increasingly play a role in projects funded by NOAA, and a major forthcoming National Academies study called “America’s Climate Choices” will be led, in part, by social scientists. A recent report from the National Research Council observed that the US Climate Change Science Program “is hindered by its limited research into the social sciences,” as a press release mildly put it, “…and the separation of natural and social sciences research.” Social science spending has never risen above 3 percent of the program’s budget.
{ 6 } Comments
Hi, good post. I have been wondering about this issue,so thanks for posting.
Excellent information. Social science is the way to move stright on social track.
Most definitely – it is, after all, our human behavior that has put us in this pickle in the first place! Of course, as Einstein so aptly said, we cannot solve the world’s problems using the same mindset used to create them, so we need to look at ourselves closely and recognize that we are part of the problem as well as part of the solution. Studying group mentality is critical, as the social paradigms we operate under are so culturally engrained that we often react out of habit rather than rationally.
Absolutely – new forms of partnership are needed to tackle the problem of climate change, and a huge challenge will be in getting individuals from vastly different backgrounds to enter into sustained dialogue. Unless people reach agreement on issues, the point will never be reached at which they are prepared to commit resources to necessary action.
Couldn’t agree with you more – social science is often seen as ‘soft’ science, but in terms of understanding and creating the social change for sustainability we need, social research is invaluable. The situation is the same here in Australia, where social science receives a fraction of the attention and funding for research on climate change – but wheels are change are turning here too, and the value of social research is slowly becoming more recognized…
Ally
http://www.happyearth.com.au
Adventures in urban Sustainability
I am agreeing that social science research is also important as other researches, thanks for this article.
Post a Comment