Search

Despite rising calls for social science knowledge in the face of climate change, too few sociologists have been engaged in the conversations about how we have arrived at such perilous climatic circumstances, or how society can change course. With its attention to the interactive dimensions of social order between individuals, social norms, cultural systems and political economy, the discipline of sociology is uniquely positioned to be an important leader in this conversation. In this paper I suggest that in order to understand and respond to climate change we need two kinds of imagination: 1) to see the relationships between human actions and their impacts on earth's biophysical system (ecological imagination) and 2) to see the relationships within society that make up this environmentally damaging social structure (sociological imagination). The scientific community has made good progress in developing our ecological imagination but still need to develop a sociological imagination. The application of a sociological imagination allows for a powerfully reframing of four key problems in the current interdisciplinary conversation on climate change: why climate change is happening, how we are being impacted, why we have failed to successfully respond so far, and how we might be able to effectively do so . I visit each of these four questions describing the current understanding and show the importance of the sociological imagination and other insights from the field of sociology. I close with reflections on current limitations in sociology's potential to engage climate change and the Anthropocene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy makers have made repeated calls for integration of human and natural sciences in the field of climate change. Serious multidisciplinary attempts began already in the 1950s. Progress has certainly been made in understanding the role of humans in the planetary system. New perspectives have clarified policy advice, and three insights are singled out in the paper: the critique of historicism, the distinction between benign and wicked problems, and the cultural critique of the ‘myths of nature’. Nevertheless, analysis of the IPCC Assessment Reports indicates that integration is skewed towards a particular dimension of human sciences (economics) and major insights from cultural theory and historical analysis have not made it into climate science. A number of relevant disciplines are almost absent in the composition of authorship. Nevertheless, selective assumptions and arguments are made about e.g. historical findings in key documents. In conclusion, we suggest to seek remedies for the lack of historical scholarship in the IPCC reports. More effort at science-policy exchange is needed, and an Integrated Platform to channel humanities and social science expertise for climate change research might be one promising way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The 2007 edition of the Global Change Research Workshops brought over 50 researchers from all over the world to Wengen, Switzerland to review the state of the art with respect to desertification, particularly in the light of climate change. They set out to identify critical knowledge gaps and make recommendations for further research from a wide range of perspectives in both the natural and social sciences. Recent achievements both within discipline and new inter-disciplinary areas were highlighted. Effective communication between the researchers and high-level users of synthetic environmental information, such as international agencies, development programmes and concerned organizations operating in the field was emphasised. This introductory paper provides background to the workshop and highlights the key findings and outcomes of the conference. The findings that emerged from those discussions are summarized, and some further thoughts about recommended next steps are provided. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]