Research ArticleSOCIOLOGY

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

Science Advances  22 May 2015:
Vol. 1, no. 4, e1400217
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400217

You are currently viewing the abstract.

View Full Text

Abstract

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.

Keywords
  • boundary concept
  • functionalism
  • incommensurability
  • integrated research
  • methodological pluralism
  • resilience theory
  • system thinking
  • unification

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, so long as the resultant use is not for commercial advantage and provided the original work is properly cited.

View Full Text

More Like This