skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

Why resilience is unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience

Science advances, 2015-05, Vol.1 (4), p.e1400217-e1400217 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

Copyright © 2015, The Authors 2015 The Authors ;ISSN: 2375-2548 ;EISSN: 2375-2548 ;DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400217 ;PMID: 26601176

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    Why resilience is unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience
  • Author: Olsson, Lennart ; Jerneck, Anne ; Thoren, Henrik ; Persson, Johannes ; O'Byrne, David
  • Subjects: Annan samhällsvetenskap ; Filosofi ; Filosofi, etik och religion ; Humaniora och konst ; Humanities ; Other Social Sciences ; Philosophy ; Philosophy, Ethics and Religion ; Samhällsvetenskap ; SciAdv r-articles ; Social Sciences ; Social Sciences Interdisciplinary ; Sociology ; Tvärvetenskapliga studier inom samhällsvetenskap
  • Is Part Of: Science advances, 2015-05, Vol.1 (4), p.e1400217-e1400217
  • Description: Resilience is often promoted as a boundary concept to integrate the social and natural dimensions of sustainability. However, it is a troubled dialogue from which social scientists may feel detached. To explain this, we first scrutinize the meanings, attributes, and uses of resilience in ecology and elsewhere to construct a typology of definitions. Second, we analyze core concepts and principles in resilience theory that cause disciplinary tensions between the social and natural sciences (system ontology, system boundary, equilibria and thresholds, feedback mechanisms, self-organization, and function). Third, we provide empirical evidence of the asymmetry in the use of resilience theory in ecology and environmental sciences compared to five relevant social science disciplines. Fourth, we contrast the unification ambition in resilience theory with methodological pluralism. Throughout, we develop the argument that incommensurability and unification constrain the interdisciplinary dialogue, whereas pluralism drawing on core social scientific concepts would better facilitate integrated sustainability research.
  • Publisher: United States: American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: ISSN: 2375-2548
    EISSN: 2375-2548
    DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400217
    PMID: 26601176
  • Source: PubMed Central
    SWEPUB Freely available online
    DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait