Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- Genre: Academic theses
Description
Without scientific expertise, society may make catastrophically poor choices when faced with problems such as climate change. However, scientists who engage society with normative questions face tension between advocacy and the social norms of science that call for objectivity and neutrality. Policy established in 2011 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) required their communication to be objective and neutral and this research comprised a qualitative analysis of IPCC reports to consider how much of their communication is strictly factual (Objective), and value-free (Neutral), and to consider how their communication had changed from 1990 to 2013. Further research comprised a qualitative analysis of structured interviews with scientists and non-scientists who were professionally engaged in climate science communication, to consider practitioner views on advocacy. The literature and the structured interviews revealed a conflicting range of definitions for advocacy versus objectivity and neutrality. The practitioners that were interviewed struggled to separate objective and neutral science from attempts to persuade, and the IPCC reports contained a substantial amount of communication that was not strictly factual and value-free. This research found that science communication often blurred the distinction between facts and values, imbuing the subjective with the authority and credibility of science, and thereby damaging the foundation for scientific credibility. This research proposes a strict definition for factual and value-free as a means to separate science from advocacy, to better protect the credibility of science, and better prepare scientists to negotiate contentious science-based policy issues. The normative dimension of sustainability will likely entangle scientists in advocacy or the appearance of it, and this research may be generalizable to sustainability.
ContributorsMcClintock, Scott (Author) / Van Der Leeuw, Sander (Thesis advisor) / Klinsky, Sonja (Committee member) / Chhetri, Nalini (Committee member) / Hannah, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
The greatest challenge facing humanity in the twenty-first century is our ability to reconcile the capacity of natural systems to support continued improvement in human welfare around the globe. Over the last decade, the scientific community has attempted to formulate research agendas in response to what they view as the problems of sustainability. Perhaps the most prominent and wide-ranging of these efforts has been sustainability science, an interdisciplinary, problem-driven field that seeks to address fundamental questions on human-environment interactions. This project examines how sustainability scientists grapple with and bound the deeply social, political and normative dimensions of both characterizing and pursuing sustainability. Based on in-depth interviews with leading researchers and a content analysis of the relevant literature, this project first addresses three core questions: (1) how sustainability scientists define and bound sustainability; (2) how and why various research agendas are being constructed to address these notions of sustainability; (3) and how scientists see their research contributing to societal efforts to move towards sustainability. Based on these results, the project explores the tensions between scientific efforts to study and inform sustainability and social action. It discusses the implications of transforming sustainability into the subject of scientific analysis with a focus on the power of science to constrain discourse and the institutional and epistemological contexts that link knowledge to societal outcomes. Following this analysis, sustainability science is repositioned, borrowing Herbert Simon's concept, as a "science of design." Sustainability science has thus far been too focused on understanding the "problem-space"--addressing fundamental questions about coupled human-natural systems. A new set objectives and design principles are proposed that would move the field toward a more solutions-oriented approach and the enrichment of public reasoning and deliberation. Four new research streams that would situate sustainability science as a science of design are then discussed: creating desirable futures, socio-technical change, sustainability values, and social learning. The results serve as a foundation for a sustainability science that is evaluated on its ability to frame sustainability problems and solutions in ways that make them amenable to democratic and pragmatic social action.
ContributorsMiller, Thaddeus R. (Author) / Minteer, Ben A (Thesis advisor) / Redman, Charles L. (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Committee member) / Wiek, Arnim (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Dear reader, I hope you will read this entire dissertation. If you are reluctant because of its length, I invite you to contact me for a conversation instead. Over the past eight years I have been a part of three unfolding histories: colonialism, sustainability science, and the Atlas of Creative Tools (the Atlas). In this dissertation I describe how I am a part of these histories. I advocate for partnering them so that the Atlas is used by people in the field of sustainability science to advance cognitive justice in their work. This advocacy is supported by research conducted using a mixed-methods approach. I combine qualitative methods used to study each of the three histories with the experiential knowledge I gained from being a part of them. Throughout the dissertation I move back and forth between academic research and experiential knowledge. Each informs the other. This back-and-forth movement is itself a method to interrogate the assumptions of dissertation writing. My purposes for doing so are two-fold. I want to honor the dissertation as a form of knowledge production that can promote cognitive justice while also pointing out how it hinders it. Additionally, the back-and-forth interrogation method involves using creative tools from the Atlas in the text itself. This demonstrates how the Atlas can be used to promote cognitive justice while producing knowledge in sustainability science. I structure this dissertation to aid you in four ways. First, I provide a view of sustainability science as a contested space that people can and do use to advance cognitive justice. Second, I write about my research and analysis of the Atlas so that my descriptions can be used right away by other practitioners who are working with the Atlas. Third, my methods for interrogating the dissertation itself are meant to be used, modified, and built on by others. Finally, I hope that the connections I make between the Atlas and sustainability science are helpful for your work, and that they inspire you to try the Atlas and see how you can use it to promote cognitive justice in your own contexts.
ContributorsNock, Matthew (Author) / Haglund, LaDawn (Thesis advisor) / Manuel-Navarrete, David (Thesis advisor) / Lerman, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
The science community has made efforts for over a half century to address sustainable development, which gave birth to sustainability science at the turn of the twenty-first century. Along with the development of sustainability science during the past two decades, a landscape sustainability science (LSS) perspective has been emerging. As interests in LSS continue to grow rapidly, scholars are wondering what LSS is about and how LSS fits into sustainability science, while practitioners are asking how LSS actually contributes to sustainability in the real world. To help address these questions, this dissertation research aims to explore the currently underused problem-driven, diagnostic approach to enhancing landscape sustainability through an empirical example of urbanization-associated farmland loss (UAFL). Based mainly on multimethod analysis of bibliographic information, the dissertation explores conceptual issues such as how sustainability science differs from conventional sustainable development research, and how the past, present, and future research needs of LSS evolve. It also includes two empirical studies diagnosing the issue of urban expansion and the related food security concern in the context of China, and proposes a different problem framing for farmland preservation such that stakeholders can be more effectively mobilized. The most important findings are: (1) Sustainability science is not “old wine in a new bottle,” and in particular, is featured by its complex human-environment systems perspective and value-laden transdisciplinary perspective. (2) LSS has become a vibrant emerging field since 2004-2006 with over three-decade’s intellectual accumulation deeply rooted in landscape ecology, yet LSS has to further embrace the two featured perspectives of sustainability science and to conduct more problem-driven, diagnostic studies of concrete landscape-relevant sustainability concerns. (3) Farmland preservationists’ existing problem framing of UAFL is inappropriate for its invalid causal attribution (i.e., urban expansion is responsible for farmland loss; farmland loss is responsible for decreasing grain production; and decreasing grain production instead of increasing grain demand is responsible for grain self-insufficiency); the real problem with UAFL is social injustice due to collective action dilemma in preserving farmland for regional and global food sufficiency. The present research provides broad implications for landscape scientists, the sustainability research community, and UAFL stakeholders.
ContributorsZhou, Bingbing (Author) / Wu, Jianguo (Thesis advisor) / Aggarwal, Rimjhim (Committee member) / Anderies, John Marty (Committee member) / Janssen, Marcus Alexander (Committee member) / Turner II, Billie Lee (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020