On the Heterogeneity of Gender Stereotypes About Academic Fields Within the Natural Sciences, Humanities, and Social Sciences

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

Editorial

Gender stereotypes about psychological science: Female, male, or both?

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.

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.

Within TIMSS 2011 testing, fourth grade students of the primary school in Serbia, for the first time participated in the international testing achievements of natural sciences. Achievements of students from natural sciences have been estimated with the knowledge test. In the tests, there are chosen examples from previous cycles, and this is the basis for comparing results from different cycles. Apart from these tasks, there were new ones, and their characteristics were checked by sample testing. For the needs of the research, a representative sample was created which was obtained by certified sampling. Students of the fourth grade from Serbia, at TIMSS 2011 testing from natural sciences had average achievement, and it is statistically significantly above the average of international TIMSS achievement scale - 516 points. In the paper, we are going to discuss contents dimension of this research, its relation to the curriculum of the subject The World Around Us, i.e. Natural and Social Sciences in Serbia, and curricula referring to natural sciences in educational systems in which students had the best achievements at TIMSS 2011 testing (South Korea, Singapore, Finland, Japan and Russia). The aim of discussion of the stated relations is provoking discussion concerning influence of the official curricula on achievement of students at natural sciences tests. We studied general characteristics of the curricula referring to natural sciences subjects, official aims and teaching contents for excerpting major similarities among the curricula of the five stated countries. Observed similarities of the discussed curricula, we compared to the curriculum of The World Around Us, i.e. Natural and Social Sciences in Serbia. In the paper, we commented achievement of students from Serbia, which was at TIMSS 2011 testing, and which refers to contents, which do not belong to the official curriculum of Natural, and Social Sciences. In concluding remarks, we stressed the need for further studying influence of the curriculum on achievements of students at TIMSS testing, and particularly reconsidering relations between the planned curriculum, applied curriculum and achieved curriculum.

This research is based on the government's efforts to improve harmony between Indonesian communities through religious moderation. So, this research was conducted to identify the challenges and opportunities faced in implementing religious moderation through learning natural sciences and social studies in elementary schools. Elementary schools play a strategic role in fostering moderate character through the integration of tolerant values, especially in the natural sciences and social sciences learning curriculum. The preparation of this article uses a literature review. The results of the study show that learning natural and social sciences has an important role and is a forum in forming a moderate generation. The natural sciences develop critical and objective thinking to prevent fanaticism, while the social sciences teach social diversity and how to coexist with a pluralistic society. However, this is accompanied by challenges such as teachers' lack of understanding of religious moderation. In conclusion, religious moderation is important for Indonesian people to live in harmony, this can be realized through teaching from elementary school through collaborative learning in natural sciences and social sciences learning. Meanwhile, training with nuances of religious moderation for teachers is an option to add insight in carrying out learning practices with students.

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 ...

In this article, we are trying to grasp the role of hisroricism in the understanding of epistemology in the late of XX century. From Bacon to enlightenment, it has been understood that the only criterion of science based on natural sciences. The extent of science has also been determined as study according to the method of the natural sciences, therefore the sciences concerned with history and society has also determined according to method of the natural sciences. In this article authors aims to introduce to movement called Historicism. Which is emerged in XIX century as a critical viewpoint against classical approach to the science. Most influential figure of this movement was German thinker Wilhelm Dilthey. Dilthey had an anti-positivist attitude towards the established methodology by natural science. Which was saying that in order to be a science every researcher must have rigorous set of rules and their research must based on experiment results, observable facts, and objective evidence. Starting from Dilthey and with help of other philosophical schools new movement called historicism starts its journey to establishing new methodology to human and social science. And this movement made a classification of science. They divided science into natural and spiritual science. Each of science has its own methods and object of study. They believed that to social and human study we cannot apply natural science methods of research due to it is not a physical or biological subject but it is social life and human destiny and history. Considering this process of change, is it possible to talk about historicism as a contemporary epistemological approach? As a methodology, can we talk about history in the separation of positive science? What is the subject of history in social and human sciences? By moving from this questions, we will try to understand the role of historicism in the contemprory philosophy on the hermeneutical phenomenological approach.

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.

This study aimed to determine the relationship between social media and social relations among university students, users and non-users of social media. It also aimed to Identify indicators for social workers to enable them to work with to support the social relationships for university students, users of social media, from social and natural science disciplines. The study population comprised the whole student body of HelwanUniversity with all its faculties. The total sample of the research was 210 students, where 95 students were from social science disciplines (specifically Faculty of Social Work and Faculty of Arts), and 115 students were from natural science disciplines (specifically Faculty of Pharmacy and Faculty of Sciences). The study concluded that there are differences between the social media user and non-user students from social science disciplines, and no differences between user and non-user students from natural science disciplines on the social relations scale. However, there are differences between the mean scores of social media non-user students from social science disciplines and those from natural science disciplines on the social relations scale

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

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 < 0.05 and the calculated t value is 5.210 > 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 < 0.05 and the calculated t value is 3,199 > 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 < 0.05 and the calculated F value is 44.06> 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...