Global change research and the "people disciplines": Toward a new dispensation

Castree, N

Global change research and the "people disciplines": Toward a new dispensation

Castree, N

Permalink

Publisher:: DUKE UNIV PRESS
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: South Atlantic Quarterly, 2017, 116, (1), pp. 55-67
Issue Date:: 2017-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	ddsaq_116_1_05Castree_Fpp.pdf		1.12 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Castree, N https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0282-5319
dc.date.accessioned	2022-08-31T05:37:22Z
dc.date.available	2022-08-31T05:37:22Z
dc.date.issued	2017-01-01
dc.identifier.citation	South Atlantic Quarterly, 2017, 116, (1), pp. 55-67
dc.identifier.issn	0038-2876
dc.identifier.issn	1527-8026
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/161138
dc.description.abstract	<jats:p>Climate science is embedded in a much grander geoscientific attempt to understand an earth system perturbed by human activities. “Global change science,” as it is sometimes called, is now trying ever harder to understand and influence the so-called human dimensions of environmental change. While mainstream social science approaches like environmental economics are central to this effort, what of the wider social sciences and the humanities? They stand to be vital intermediaries between geoscientific claims about a changing planet and the publics, politicians, business leaders, and third-sector organizations that must now respond to those claims or court danger. This article explores the relationships between epistemic communities across the disciplines that are together trying to represent the earth and its inhabitants at a time when the relationship between the two needs to change. Though the wider social sciences and humanities have responded to the epochal claims of geoscience, this article shows that a combination of ignorance, timidity, and distance is nonetheless allowing those involved to perpetuate unhelpful institutional and intellectual separations. The article seeks to explain this state of affairs and offer reasons why it needs to change. The prospects for a new dispensation are, however, distant.</jats:p>
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	DUKE UNIV PRESS
dc.relation.ispartof	South Atlantic Quarterly
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1215/00382876-3749315
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	2002 Cultural Studies, 2005 Literary Studies
dc.subject.classification	Political Science & Public Administration
dc.title	Global change research and the "people disciplines": Toward a new dispensation
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	116
utslib.for	2002 Cultural Studies
utslib.for	2005 Literary Studies
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences/FASS Faculty Administration
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2022-08-31T05:37:21Z
pubs.issue	1
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	116
utslib.citation.issue	1

Abstract:

Climate science is embedded in a much grander geoscientific attempt to understand an earth system perturbed by human activities. “Global change science,” as it is sometimes called, is now trying ever harder to understand and influence the so-called human dimensions of environmental change. While mainstream social science approaches like environmental economics are central to this effort, what of the wider social sciences and the humanities? They stand to be vital intermediaries between geoscientific claims about a changing planet and the publics, politicians, business leaders, and third-sector organizations that must now respond to those claims or court danger. This article explores the relationships between epistemic communities across the disciplines that are together trying to represent the earth and its inhabitants at a time when the relationship between the two needs to change. Though the wider social sciences and humanities have responded to the epochal claims of geoscience, this article shows that a combination of ignorance, timidity, and distance is nonetheless allowing those involved to perpetuate unhelpful institutional and intellectual separations. The article seeks to explain this state of affairs and offer reasons why it needs to change. The prospects for a new dispensation are, however, distant.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/161138