Changing the intellectual climate

• Published in: Nature climate change Vol. 4; no. 9; pp. 763 - 768
• Main Authors: Castree, Noel, Adams, William M., Barry, John, Brockington, Daniel, Büscher, Bram, Corbera, Esteve, Demeritt, David, Duffy, Rosaleen, Felt, Ulrike, Neves, Katja, Newell, Peter, Pellizzoni, Luigi, Rigby, Kate, Robbins, Paul, Robin, Libby, Rose, Deborah Bird, Ross, Andrew, Schlosberg, David, Sörlin, Sverker, West, Paige, Whitehead, Mark, Wynne, Brian
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 01.09.2014; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 706/648/264; 706/689/680; Climate Change; Climate Change/Climate Change Impacts; Earth and Environmental Science; Environment; Environmental changes; Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice; Environmental problems; Human ecology and demography; perspective; Social sciences; Sociology; Climate change; Intellectual Investment; Social sciences; Interdisciplinary Approach; Environmental action; Knowledge; Physics
• ISSN: 1758-678X; 1758-6798; 1758-6798
• DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2339

How the global change science community is currently portraying the character and role of the social sciences and humanities is problematic, according to this Perspective. Measures needed to bring other visions and voices into the debate about global environmental change are identified. Calls for more broad-based, integrated, useful knowledge now abound in the world of global environmental change science. They evidence many scientists' desire to help humanity confront the momentous biophysical implications of its own actions. But they also reveal a limited conception of social science and virtually ignore the humanities. They thereby endorse a stunted conception of 'human dimensions' at a time when the challenges posed by global environmental change are increasing in magnitude, scale and scope. Here, we make the case for a richer conception predicated on broader intellectual engagement and identify some preconditions for its practical fulfilment. Interdisciplinary dialogue, we suggest, should engender plural representations of Earth's present and future that are reflective of divergent human values and aspirations. In turn, this might insure publics and decision-makers against overly narrow conceptions of what is possible and desirable as they consider the profound questions raised by global environmental change.