• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Society and Natural Resources >Navel warfare? the best of minds, the worst of minds, and the dangers of misplaced concreteness
【24h】

Navel warfare? the best of minds, the worst of minds, and the dangers of misplaced concreteness

机译：肚脐战？最好的头脑，最坏的头脑以及放错位置的危险

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Academic debates can be entertaining and even useful, but they can also have drawbacks. The present debate has at least three of them. First, despite out ability to discern differing central tendencies between "environmental" and "resource" sociology, the excitement of a debate can cause such modest differences to be exaggerated, potentially being reified into a "divide." Second, only a limited number of social scientists are studying resource/environmental issues, even today, so any researcher attention that is focused on navel gazing--or worse, navel warfare -- is being diverted away from the research topics themselves. Third and most disturbingly, as human impacts on the environment grow more pervasive, we are likely to see an increasing numberof cases where problems involve both "resource" and "environmental" issues, simultaneously. The true need is thus not to argue about differences--or to create them--but instead to develop synergies across differing points of view.
机译：学术辩论可能很有趣，甚至很有用，但也可能有弊端。目前的辩论至少有三个。首先，尽管没有能力辨别“环境”和“资源”社会学之间的不同中心趋势，但辩论的激烈性可能会夸大这种适度的差异，有可能被归类为“鸿沟”。其次，即使是今天，也只有少数社会科学家在研究资源/环境问题，因此，任何专注于肚脐注视（或更糟的是肚脐战争）的研究人员的注意力都将转移到研究主题本身之外。第三，也是最令人不安的是，随着人类对环境的影响越来越普遍，我们可能会看到越来越多的情况同时涉及“资源”和“环境”问题。因此，真正的需要不是争辩或创造差异，而是跨不同观点发展协同作用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号