Suchergebnisse

This review article examines how social science literature co-produces various imaginaries of forest-based bioeconomy transformations and pathways for reaching desired ends. Based on an analysis of 59 research articles, we find that despite a growing number of social sciences studies on the forest-based bioeconomy, much of the research tends to replicate a bioeconomy imaginary articulated in EU and national bioeconomy policies and strategies. Accordingly, the research primarily reproduces a weak approach to sustainability, which prioritize economic growth and competitiveness. Expectations are largely directed at national and regional corporate interests and forest industrial renewal, while the state has a supportive rather than restricting role. We discuss the findings against the role of social sciences, and conclude that social science scholars may adopt various strategies if interested in opening up forest-based policy debates and offer alternative imaginaries of sustainable bioeconomy transformations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-020-01398-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This review article examines how social science literature co-produces various imaginaries of forest-based bioeconomy transformations and pathways for reaching desired ends. Based on an analysis of 59 research articles, we find that despite a growing number of social sciences studies on the forest-based bioeconomy, much of the research tends to replicate a bioeconomy imaginary articulated in EU and national bioeconomy policies and strategies. Accordingly, the research primarily reproduces a weak approach to sustainability, which prioritize economic growth and competitiveness. Expectations are largely directed at national and regional corporate interests and forest industrial renewal, while the state has a supportive rather than restricting role. We discuss the findings against the role of social sciences, and conclude that social science scholars may adopt various strategies if interested in opening up forest-based policy debates and offer alternative imaginaries of sustainable bioeconomy transformations.

15 citation analyses in the soc sci's, representing res completed in the US & the UK, are compared & analyzed. Fields represented include pol'al sci, sociol, business admin, econ's, & educ. According to the findings of these studies, writers in econ's & in the applied fields of educ & business administration tend to draw their sources from a rather narrow range of subject fields. In the 'pure' soc sci's, about 90% of the references are from English language sources. This % rises much higher in the applied fields. Roughly 50% of the materials used by soc sci'ts are monographs as opposed to periodicals & other serials. Humanists apparently use a larger proportion of monographs, while natural sci'ts depend much more on periodicals. In age, about 50% of the references used by authors in soc sci are 10 yrs old or less. This age is slightly greater than that of literature used by natural sci'ts; & noticeably less than the age of sources used by humanists. Modified HA.

Following an introduction by Jesse Lemisch to Weisstein's classic work "Psychology Constructs the Female; or the Fantasy Life of the Male Psychologist," Weisstein examines some controversies raised by Alan Sokal in his parody of postmodernist ideas about science, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" (1996). It is contended that the social constructionism characteristic of the resurgence of US feminism in the late 1960s has been turned against women. Feminist psychologists have come to advocate a scientific view of women that separates them from the context in which they live. The importance of inquiry into the nature of power & how people resist it is stressed, as is the need for women to develop a collective resistance to oppose power & authority. Feminist psychologists are criticized for having shortsightedly abandoned the principles of social constructionism & rejected the scientific method as inapplicable to the study of gender & gender differences. B. Wolfe