Orders of Social Science: Understanding Social-Scientific Controversies and Confluence on What “High-Quality” Knowledge and “Good” Adaptation Is

Various scholars have noted—and experienced—tribal tendencies between social-scientific “schools of thought” or “paradigms.” The intensity and fervor such controversies has led some scientists to compare them with frictions religious orders . In the research domain focused on use climate science for adaptation, disputes revolve around what “high-quality” knowledge “good” adaptation is should be. Emphasizing this diversity social humanities , article describes five distinct ways thought written about adaptation: descriptivists aim empirically portray as objectively possible from an assumed subject-independent perspective; pragmatists' wants increase resilience through usable information; argumentivists strive assessing justification scientific findings, well decision-making that based these findings; interpretivists seek redescribe how shaped by, shapes, various other processes political actors; critical work toward revealing pervasive powerful interests marginalizing discourses shape projects negatively. By comparing orders' respective scientific, environmental aims concerns, pinpoints epistemological, ontological methodological priorities not only drive issues “high-quality knowledge” is, but also interdependent choices are their epistemological positions. However, analysis reveals while implicitly stick order, others comfortable collaborate across borders. Overall, diverging aims, priorities, methods unlikely be ever fully reconciled. A better understanding why academics different differ in approaches they take care will likely lead a larger appreciation differences broaden our key dynamics studying knowledge.