At the nexus of problem-solving and critical research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analytical distinction between critical and problem-solving research is useful. At the onset of research, the latter takes the world as it is while the former questions it. Yet, in striving to integrate social and natural dimensions of sustainability such a distinction may surface as a methodological obstacle. We illustrate how combining critical with problem-solving approaches can help us imagine, understand, and enable transitions to sustainability. First, we trace the historical divide and potential complementarity between critical and problem-solving approaches in the natural and social sciences and how critical approaches in the social sciences are informed by critical theory. Inspired by Robert Cox, we then analyze a set of PhD theses in an interdisciplinary research program engaging in critical and problem-solving research, on and for sustainability. We do so based on Cox's terminology, especially the concepts of ideas, institutions, material capabilities, and frameworks for action, and then show how selected research narratives apply them. To conclude, we emphasize that integrated understandings of human-environmental dynamics are facilitated by multiscalar approaches, theoretical and methodological pluralism, and a combination of natural and social science theory, typical of the interdisciplinary research field of sustainability science.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.121 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".