Chapter 11. Finding fields: Concluding remarks

Imagining a Place for Sustainability Management: An Early Career Call for Action

This paper discusses the ecology of species that were favoured by the development of the cultural landscape in central and NW Europe beginning in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, with a focus on mechanisms behind species responses to this landscape transformation. A fraction of species may have maintained their realized niches from the pre‐ agricultural landscape and utilized similar niches created by the landscape transformation. However, I suggest that many species responded by altering their niche relationships, and a conceptual model is proposed for this response, based on niche construction, ecological opportunity and niche shifts. Human‐mediated niche construction, associated with clearing of forests and creation of pastures and fields promoted niche shifts towards open habitats, and species exploited the ecological opportunity provided by these created environments. This process was initially purely ecological, i.e. the new habitats must have been included in the original fundamental niche of the species. Two other features of human‐mediated niche construction, increased interconnectivity and increased spatial stability of open habitats, resulted in species accumulating in the habitats of the constructed landscape. As a consequence, selection processes were initiated favouring traits promoting fitness in the constructed landscape. This process implied a feed‐back to niche shifts, but now also including evolutionary changes in fundamental niches. I briefly discuss whether this model can be applied also to present‐day anthropogenic impact on landscapes. A general conclusion is that ecological and evolutionary changes in species niches should be more explicitly considered in modeling and predictions of species response to present‐day landscape and land‐use changes.

The integration of natural and social sciences has been recognized as a key aspect of Earth System (E.S.) research, a cross-disciplinary field involving the study of the geosphere, the biosphere, and society (IGBP, 2006; Leemans et al., 2009; Pfeiffer, 2008; Reid et al., 2010; Young, 2008). Because of societal and political correlates between environmental change and socio-economic development, the study of the Earth System has been increasingly ascribed social and political dimensions emphasizing the need for greater collaboration between the social and natural sciences (Beven, 2011; Kates et al., 2001; Leemans et al., 2009; Reid et al., 2010; Saloranta, 2001; Shackley et al., 1998). The problem of inter-disciplinary articulation between the social and natural sciences is not specific to E.S. research, and its challenges can be traced back to the very origins of the notions of science and social science (e.g. Comte, 1830-1842; de Alvarenga et al., 2011; Latour, 2000, 2004). To a degree, these challenges could be explained in terms of the increasing gulf between two cultures – those of the sciences and the humanities – as suggested by C.P. Snow (1905-1980) in an instigating essay (Snow, 1990 [1959]), due to the high specialization in science and education, and, not less important, to a “tendency to let our social forms to crystallise” (Snow, 1990: 172). More to the point, the increasing importance attributed to the problem has motivated a growing number of analyses concerning the high level of specialization and fragmentation of science and university education (e.g. de Alvarenga et al., 2011; Moraes, 2005; Snow, 1990), but also the societal and political questions concerning research agendas (e.g. Alves, 2008; Kates et al., 2001; Latour, 2000, 2004; Schor, 2008), the disparities between developed and developing countries not just in affluence level, but also in research capacity (Kates et al, 2001; Pfeiffer, 2008; Schor, 2008), and, finally, from a more methodological point of view, the multiplicity of theoreticomethodological perspectives admitted by the social sciences (e.g. de Alvarenga et al., 2011; Floriani et al, 2011; Giddens, 2001; Leis, 2011; Moraes, 2005; Oliveira Filho, 1976; Raynaut & Zanoni, 2011; Weffort, 2006). Yet, in the E.S. field the problem of bringing together social and natural sciences has been a permanent and still unresolved challenge (Alves et al., 2007; Alves, 2008; Geoghegan et al.,

Background. Literature indicates that in academic writing, authors are expected to demonstrate a noticeable stance so that they can make their meaning clear. Therefore, differences between native and non-native writers along with cross-disciplinary academic writing assume great significance. Purpose. The interactional, dialogic, and reflective nature of academic writing requires writers to utilize stance-establishing tools in their writing, the most prominent ones being stance nouns. In addition, the that-clause construction plays a vital role in conveying the author’s stance. Studies that compare L1 Turkish writers of English and L1 English writers regarding academic writing are rather scarce. As such, the present paper aims to analyze L1 Turkish writers of English and L1 English writers in eight disciplines from natural and social sciences in terms of the use of stance nouns in that-clause constructions. Methods. The study employs Jiang and Hyland's (2016) functional classification model in exploring the nominal stance in cross-disciplinary writing of L1 Turkish writers of English and L1 English writers. To this end, journals with high impact in eight disciplines from social and natural sciences were scanned and a total of 320 articles were included in the corpus. The social sciences included in the present study cover applied linguistics, history, psychology, and sociology while the natural sciences cover medicine, engineering, astronomy, and biology. In total, a corpus of 2.232.164 words was formed. Results and Implications. The study found significant differences not only in terms of natural and social sciences but also in terms of L1/L2 distinction. In addition, a secondary purpose of the study was to see whether writers in social and natural sciences differed in terms of empiricist and interpretive rationality. The results indicated that writers in social sciences tended to use more status and cognition nouns, indicating that they tend to be more interpretive. With significant differences between Turkish and English writers from a cross-disciplinary perspective, the present study offers important insights into how writers weave their stance in academic writing. Moreover, the present study also confirmed that writers in social sciences, whether L1 or L2, tend to use more stance nouns compared with writers in natural sciences.

Arien Mack Editor’s Introduction WHEN I FIRST BEGAN TO DISCUSS THE THEME OF “ERRORS” WITH MY coeditor for this special issue, Gerald Holton, the question arose as to whether the kinds of “fruitful” mistakes that occur in the natural sciences also occur in the social sciences. While the degree of resem­ blance between the natural and social sciences has long been the subject of discussion within the social sciences themselves, I do not think the question has been much discussed in these particular terms. Since this issue ofSocialResearch attests to the presence of fruitful errors in the natural sciences, we invited several distinguished social scien­ tists to address the question of whether such errors occur in the social sciences. Many of the social scientists from whom I initially requested advice pointed out that, unlike physical laws in the natural sciences, “laws” in the social sciences—if there are any—are often contin­ gent and change as the social and cultural contexts change. In addi­ tion, two of the respondents pointed out, I think correctly, that the prim ary problem in the social sciences is not so much the validity of the claims of social scientists, which may or not be correct, but rather the consequences of those claims for social policies. An obvi­ ous instance of this was Cyril Burt’s claim about genetic differences in intelligence, which led to discriminatory immigration rules and other bad social policy. Fortunately for us at Sodal Research despite the general consen­ sus that “fruitful” errors were not characteristic of the social sciences, several distinguished social scientists agreed to explore the question of social research Vol 72 : No 1: Spring 2005 xl errors in the social sciences and have written interestingly about it for this issue. These articles stand as illuminating complements to the arti­ cles by historians of the natural sciences that also appear, and clarify one more dimension on which the social and natural sciences differ. Arien Mack xii social research ...

Following an initial discussion of the general nature of interpretation in contemporary psychology, and social and natural science, relevant views of Charles Taylor and Thomas Kuhn are considered in some detail. Although both Taylor and Kuhn agree that interpretation in the social or human sciences differs in some ways from interpretation in the natural sciences, they disagree about the nature and origins of such difference. Our own analysis follows, in which we consider differences in interpretation between the natural and social sciences (psychology in particular) in terms of Ian Hacking's use of Elizabeth Anscombe's conceptualization of actions as intentional acts under particular descriptions. We conclude that both Taylor and Kuhn are correct to point to differences in interpretation between the natural and social sciences. We also argue that in psychology, such interpretive differences, contra Kuhn and pro Taylor, are qualitative rather than quantitative. They arise from the nature of persons as self‐interpretive, reactive beings who act under socioculturally sanctioned, linguistic descriptions. The actions of psychological persons may display qualitative differences over time and across contexts as these descriptions, including social scientific and psychological findings and interpretations, change. In contrast, even when descriptions in natural science change, such changes do not spawn changes in the self‐interpretations and intentional actions of the focal phenomena of natural science. We also make the point that much current confusion surrounding interpretation in science arises from the unwarranted tendency of some commentators to treat interpretation as subjective, in ways that ignore the objective grounding of interpretation within regulated social practices, including scientific practices sanctioned by scientific communities.

In German primary schools, natural sciences and social studies are learned and taught in an integrative manner within a subject called Sachunterricht. To teach Sachunterricht in a high-quality manner, it is reasonable to assume that primary school teachers themselves require—among other things, such as knowledge about pedagogy, teaching Sachunterricht, and the various content areas of Sachunterricht—a distinct interest, academic self-concept, and sense of belonging regarding natural and social sciences. Furthermore, they should possess a solid interdisciplinary competence that enables them to teach natural and social sciences in an integrative way. In the present study, we conducted a longitudinal survey of pre-service primary school teachers from a German university over a period of 2 years to investigate the changes in their (self-evaluated) interdisciplinary competence; the changes in their interest, academic self-concept, and sense of belonging regarding natural and social sciences; and the correlations between these constructs. Our data analysis revealed a decrease over time in participants’ sense of belonging to natural and social sciences, as well as their (self-evaluated) interdisciplinary competence, while their academic self-concept in natural and social sciences remained stable. Participants’ interest in social sciences decreased, while their interest in natural sciences increased. Moreover, we found varying degrees of correlation between these constructs. In summary, the results of the present study provide important insights into the professional development of pre-service primary school teachers within university-based teacher education for teaching natural and social sciences in primary school. The implications of these findings are discussed in detail at the end of this paper.

That there are differences between social and natural phenomena is hardly a matter of dispute, and there is little question that these differences result from role of subjective states such as purposes, attitudes, and beliefs in human affairs. The important question is not whether these differences exist but whether they lead to fundamental differences between natural and social sciences. As Bhaskar notes, this is primal question of philosophy of social and it has dominated social sciences since their birth.1 The ardently contested issues raised by question of relationship between social and natural sciences have permeated social-scientific disciplines in disputes that have decisively shaped their development.2 Perhaps it is only a slight exaggeration to suggest that differences between various schools within social sciences are reducible to different ways these issues have been resolved. The framework for discussion of these issues was in large measure work of Max Weber. This is not surprising from a thinker labeled the last universal genius of social sciences3 by an admirer and the greatest social scientist of our century4 by one of his harshest critics. Although Weber's interest in methodological issues was secondary and his writings on subject usually polemical, erudition and insight with which he analyzed character of social sciences have commanded continuing attention. This attention has focused primarily on Weber's insistence that susceptibility of social phenomena to interpretative understanding radically distinguishes them from natural phenomena and creates a unique task for social sciences. This alone, however, says nothing about relationship between social and natural sciences, and no aspect of Weber's thought has been more controversial or more variously construed than nature of interpretative understanding and its significance for logic of sociocultural inquiry.5

Perspectives on Diamond’s<i>Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed</i>

CA Forum on Anthropology in Public: Perspectives on Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

This research aims to describe; a) The influence of learning styles on student learning outcomes in Natural and Social Sciences subjects, b) The influence of learning motivation on student learning outcomes in Natural and Social Sciences subjects, c) The influence of learning styles and learning motivation on student learning outcomes in subjects Social Science and Natural Sciences lessons. This type of research is quantitative research. The population and sample in this study were all 72 students in grades IV, V, VI of the Negri 15 Linge Elementary School, Central Aceh Regency. Data collection techniques use observation, questionnaires and documentation. Data analysis techniques use multiple linear regression test analysis. The research results show that; a) there is a significant influence of learning style on student learning outcomes in Natural and Social Sciences subjects, where the Sig. for the (partial) influence of learning style on learning outcomes is 0.00 &lt; 0.05 and the calculated t value is 5.210 &gt; 1.994 so it can be concluded that H1 is accepted which means there is an influence of learning style (X1) on Learning Outcomes (Y). b) There is a significant influence between learning motivation on student learning outcomes in Natural and Social Sciences subjects, where the Sig. for the (partial) influence of learning motivation on learning outcomes is 0.00 &lt; 0.05 and the calculated t value is 3,199 &gt; 1.99 so it can be concluded that H2 is accepted, which means there is an influence of learning motivation (X2) on learning outcomes (Y), c) There is a significant influence of learning style and learning motivation on student learning outcomes in Social Sciences and Natural Sciences subjects where, the Sig. for the (simultaneous) influence of learning style and learning motivation on learning outcomes is 0.00 &lt; 0.05 and the calculated F value is 44.06&gt; 3.13 so it can be concluded that H3 is accepted which means there is an influence of Learning Style (X1) and Learning Motivation ( X2) simultaneously on Learning Outcomes (Y)

A Futurist Turn in the Humanities Mikhail Epstein (bio) THE ART OF THE HUMANITIES The creative aspect of the humanities has not yet found its recognition in the established classification of academic disciplines. The crucial question may be formulated as follows: are the humanities a purely scholarly field, or should there be some active, constructive supplement to them? There are three major branches of knowledge established in academia: natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. Technology serves as the practical extension ("application") of the natural sciences, and politics as the extension of the social sciences. Both technology and politics are designed to transform what their respective disciplines study: nature and society. Is there, then, any activity in the humanities that would correspond to this transformative status of technology and politics? In the following schema, the third line demonstrates a blank space, indicating the open status of the practical applications of the humanities: Nature – natural sciences – technology – transformation of nature Society – social sciences – politics – transformation of society Culture – the humanities – ? – transformation of culture The question mark suggests that we need a practical branch of the humanities that will function like technology and politics but [End Page 593] is specific to the cultural domain. The tendency in the "applied humanities" up to this point has been to technologize or politicize these disciplines, that is, to subject them to the practical modalities of natural or social sciences. "The digital humanities" or "the humanities at the service of ideology" are examples of such subjugation. We need a practical branch of the humanities which resonates with technology and politics, but is specific to the cultural domain. The simplest term for this transformative branch of the humanities would be the transhumanities—the humanities that aim to transform the area of their studies. The transformative humanities encompass all humanistic technologies, all practical applications of cultural theories. When offering a certain theory, we need to ask ourselves if it is able to inaugurate a new cultural or linguistic practice, an artistic movement, a disciplinary field, a new institution, or a lifestyle. Generally speaking, the humanities can be perceived as art or scholarship, and what I suggest is the resurrection of the art of the humanities.1 This includes the art of building new intellectual communities, new paradigms of thinking and modes of communication, rather than simply studying or criticizing the products of culture. We should bear in mind that the humanities constitute the level of meta-art, different from the primary arts of literature, painting, or music, all of which comprise the objects of humanistic inquiry. The fact that the humanities belong to this meta-discursive level does not preclude their practical, productive orientation. The humanities do not produce works of art, but rather generate new cultural positions, movements, perspectives, and modes of reflexivity. Without practical applications, the humanities are what botany would be without cultivation of plants, forestry, and gardening, or cosmology without practical exploration of outer space. Scholarship becomes scholasticism. But what impact does cultural theory have on contemporary culture, or poetics on living poetry? It should be one of the tasks of literary scholarship to project new ways of writing; a task of linguistics to create new signs, lexical units, and grammatical models that would expand the richness and expressive power of language; and a task of philosophy to project new universals and universes, the alternative worlds that may become more palpable and habitable through the advance of technology. This group of practical disciplines—translinguistics, transaesthetics, transpoetics, etc.—aim to transform those areas of culture which are studied [End Page 594] by the corresponding scholarly disciplines of linguistics, aesthetics, and poetics. One of the broadest applications can be assigned to translinguistics, or "language design," which creates artificial languages or introduces new directions for the development of natural languages. Ludwik Zamenhof's project, the international language Esperanto (first introduced in 1887), obviously does not belong to the field of linguistics properly, though it derives from profound and creative linguistic scholarship. The comparative analysis of existing languages allowed Zamenhof to synthesize a new language that combines in its grammar and vocabulary Roman, German, and Slavic elements and now has about one to two million speakers worldwide. Another...

This research aims to determine the differences of students’ learning outcomes majoring in natural and social sciences at Accounting Education Department in the Faculty of Economics, Makassar State University. Population of research was students of Accounting Education Department in the year of 2011 to 2012. Samples were 50 undergraduate students who graduated from natural science and 50 undergraduate students who graduated from social science. It used purposive sampling with the certain criteria. Data were collected by using questionnaires and data on students’ study backgrounds was taken from simpadu . Then, data were analyzed by descriptive statistical analysis. Findings show that the averages of students’ learning outcomes on both Introduction to Accounting 1 and Introduction to Accounting 2 Subjects were 2.89 for students who graduated from natural science and 2.81 for students who graduated from social science. Then; students’ learning outcomes who graduated from natural science on Introduction to Accounting 1 subject was 2.80 and 2.98 for Introduction to Accounting 2. Whereas; students’ learning outcomes who graduated from social science for Introduction to Accounting 1 was 2.95 and Introduction to Accounting 2 was only 2.68. It can be concluded that students’ learning outcomes on Introduction to Accounting 1 and Introduction to Accounting 2 who graduated from Social science got the lower scores than students who graduated from natural science. It happened because the learning method which used by Natural science graduates more practical and the Social science graduates usually had discussions because they thought they already had the basic knowledge of accounting.

Editorial

This study deals with the cognitive process by students’ majoring in natural and social science in Writing Analytical Exposition Text. This study attempted to investigate the reasons why the cognitive process happens in writing analytical exposition text the way it does. The data in this study were the students of SMA Nurul Iman from two different majors; they were three students of Natural Science Major and three students of Social Science Major. This study was conducted by using qualitative design of which instrument are both writing test and interview. The research findings show that the cognitive processes of the students of the two majors were different in planning, translating and reviewing. The students majoring in natural and social science write analytical exposition in similarity and different cognitive process. The similarity is that both students majoring write analytical text in terms three stages; planning, translating, and reviewing, and the different are that the two major student perform cognitive process in different stage. The students majoring in Natural Science use the information in the assignment to generate new information then relate it with their experience and they know about the topic to be developed. Whereas, students majoring in Social Science do not really know about the topic and do not relate it with their experience so that way they could not generate content information and develop the text. Keywords: Cognitive Process, Analytical, Different Major, Social Science, Natural Sciences