Suchergebnisse

This article reflects about the way we conceptualise social studies (social science education). Firstly, the article examines the theoretical underpinnings of social science education, particularly in relation to liberal, Marxist and critical theory. Secondly, the paper analysis how modernity has conditioned the way we understand teaching and social science didactics. Thirdly, the article considers radical democracy as an alternative and examines some of the possibilities that this theory offer. This article is a tribute to Joan Pagès that aims to reconsider some of his ideas in our times of change. ; Este artículo tiene como objetivo reflexionar sobre la conceptualización de la enseñanza de las ciencias sociales. El artículo examina los fundamentos teóricos de la enseñanza de las ciencias sociales, particularmente en relación a la teoría liberal, marxista y la teoría crítica y hace un análisis de cómo los posicionamientos modernos han condicionado nuestra manera de entender la enseñanza y la didáctica de las ciencias sociales. A continuación, el artículo plantea la democracia radical como alternativa y señala algunas de las posibilidades que esta teoría abre para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. El artículo, concebido como un tributo a Joan Pagès, pretende repensar algunas de las ideas del maestro a la luz de nuestros tiempos de cambio.

This Presidential Address explores the possibilities for fruitful multilevel theorizing in criminology by proposing an integration of insights from situational action theory (SAT), a distinctively micro‐level perspective, with insights from institutional anomie theory (IAT), a distinctively macro‐level perspective. These perspectives are strategic candidates for integration because morality plays a central role in both. IAT can enrich SAT by identifying indirect causes of crime that operate at the institutional level and by highlighting the impact of the institutional context on the perception‐choice process that underlies crime. Such multilevel theorizing can also promote the development of IAT by revealing the "micro‐instantiations" of macro‐level processes and by simulating further inquiry into the social preconditions for institutional configurations that are conducive to low levels of crime. Finally, drawing on Durkheim's classic work on occupational associations, I point to the potential role of professional associations such as the American Society of Criminology in promoting and sustaining a viable moral order in the advanced capitalist societies.

Various scholars have noted—and experienced—tribal tendencies between social-scientific "schools of thought" or "paradigms." The intensity and fervor of such controversies has led some scientists to compare them with frictions between religious orders. In the research domain focused on the use of climate science for climate adaptation, such disputes revolve around the what "high-quality" climate knowledge and "good" adaptation is or should be. Emphasizing this diversity of orders of social science and the humanities, this article describes five distinct ways social scientists and humanities scholars have thought and written about climate adaptation: descriptivists aim to empirically portray climate adaptation as objectively as possible from an assumed subject-independent perspective; pragmatists' research wants to increase climate resilience through usable climate information; argumentivists strive for assessing the justification of climate scientific findings, as well as adaptation decision-making that is based on these findings; interpretivists seek to empirically redescribe how the use of climate science for adaptation is shaped by, and shapes, various other social processes and political actors; and critical scholars work toward revealing how pervasive powerful interests and marginalizing discourses shape adaptation projects negatively. By comparing these five orders' respective scientific, environmental and social aims and concerns, this article pinpoints to how epistemological, ontological and methodological priorities not only drive scientific controversies on issues such as what "high-quality knowledge" is, but also how interdependent orders' methodological choices are with their epistemological and ontological positions. However, this analysis also reveals that while some scholars implicitly stick to their order, others are comfortable to collaborate across such borders. Overall, the diverging aims, priorities, and methods are unlikely to be ever fully reconciled. A better understanding of why academics from different orders differ in the approaches they take and the issues they care about will likely lead to a larger appreciation of the differences of other orders' research and broaden our understanding of key dynamics in studying "good" climate adaptation and "high-quality" climate knowledge. ; ISSN:2624-9553

This is an open access book. The 3rd International Conference on Communication, Language, Education and Social Sciences (CLESS 2022) will be held on 25-27 July 2022. This year's conference will be a part of the bigger Digital Future Congress (DIFCON) comprising of various other conferences in different fields and will be held online. CLESS 2022 is unique in which it combines communication, language, education, and social science in an international academic conference. The aim of CLESS 2022 is to offer a platform for both local and international academics, educators, researchers and other professionals to meet, share and discuss latest research, trends, ideas and innovation in the field of communication, language, education, psychology and social sciences. The conference is aimed to provide a platform for young researchers as well as to support and encourage other researchers to present their research, to network within the international community of researchers and to share and seek the insight and advice of successful senior researchers all over the world during the conference.