Search results

At the time when the journal Sustainability [1] was launched, as a chemist and a scientist, I started to believe that social sciences may be more important to make humans sustainable. The broad journal title Social Sciences presents the opportunity for all social science scholars to have integrated consideration regarding the sustainability of humanity, because I am sure that science and technology alone cannot help. Science and technology may have in fact been contributing to accelerate the depletion of nonrenewable natural resources and putting human sustainability at risk since the industrial revolution about 150 years ago. I hope all intellectuals studying anthropology, archaeology, administration, communication, criminology, economics, education, government, linguistics, international relations, politics, sociology and, in some contexts, geography, history, law, and psychology publish with us to seek a solution to sustain humanity. Sustainability itself will also be a main topic of the journal Social Sciences. In addition to this integrated forum for social sciences, more topic specific journals, such as the already publishing Societies [2], will be launched. [...]

Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) raises many cultural, ethical, legal, social, and political issues, yet in the growing area of GGR research, humanities and social sciences (HASS) research is often marginalized, constrained and depoliticised. This global dynamic is illustrated by an analysis of the UK GGR research programme. This dynamic matters for the knowledge produced and for its users. Without HASS contributions, too narrow a range of perspectives, futures and issues will be considered, undermining or overpromising the prospects for the responsible development of GGR (and threatening worse side-effects), and limiting our understanding of why and how policy demands GGR solutions in the first place. In response, we present policy principles for bringing HASS fully into GGR research, organized around three themes: (1) HASS-led GGR research, (2) Opening up GGR futures, and (3) The politics of GGR futures.

Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) raises many cultural, ethical, legal, social, and political issues, yet in the growing area of GGR research, humanities and social sciences (HASS) research is often marginalized, constrained and depoliticised. This global dynamic is illustrated by an analysis of the UK GGR research programme. This dynamic matters for the knowledge produced and for its users. Without HASS contributions, too narrow a range of perspectives, futures and issues will be considered, undermining or overpromising the prospects for the responsible development of GGR (and threatening worse side-effects), and limiting our understanding of why and how policy demands GGR solutions in the first place. In response, we present policy principles for bringing HASS fully into GGR research, organized around three themes: (1) HASS-led GGR research, (2) Opening up GGR futures, and (3) The politics of GGR futures.

Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) raises many cultural, ethical, legal, social, and political issues, yet in the growing area of GGR research, humanities and social sciences (HASS) research is often marginalized, constrained and depoliticised. This global dynamic is illustrated by an analysis of the UK GGR research programme. This dynamic matters for the knowledge produced and for its users. Without HASS contributions, too narrow a range of perspectives, futures and issues will be considered, undermining or overpromising the prospects for the responsible development of GGR (and threatening worse side-effects), and limiting our understanding of why and how policy demands GGR solutions in the first place. In response, we present policy principles for bringing HASS fully into GGR research, organized around three themes: (1) HASS-led GGR research, (2) Opening up GGR futures, and (3) The politics of GGR futures. ; We acknowledge funding from the UK GGR programme, under several specific grants: NE/P019838/1, NE/P019900/1, NE/P019951/1, NE/P019668/1, and NE/P01982X/1.

Why Unitary Social Science? pleads for a comprehensive appraisal of social reality. Tracing the visionary and transformative paths of reality from the subjective to the objective points of view, Mukherjee argues that it is precisely the division of social science into discrete compartments as disciplines that thwarts the emergence of an objective science of society. Social science is seen here as unitary with diverse specialisations emerging from a single base but proliferating endlessly as k