Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Novelty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Climate Technology, Gender, and Justice

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Sociology ((BRIEFSSOCY))

Abstract

This Chapter poses the question of whether sulphate geoengineering research meets the criteria of novelty as articulated by Helen Longino’s feminist contextual empiricism. It includes identifying the main attributes of novelty in science, the kinds of novelty that do exist in geoengineering research, and, by articulating what genuinely novel research should look like and why it matters, and concludes that, in the context of climate engineering science, it is wanting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, E. (1995a). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense. Hypatia, 10(3), 50–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. (1995b). Knowledge, human interests, and objectivity in feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–629). Princeton University Press: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, D. K. (2004). From feminist empiricism to feminist poststructuralism: Philosophical questions in feminist economics. In J. B. Davis & A. Marciano (Eds.), The Elgar companion to economics and philosophy (pp. 213–230). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, S. (2014). Solar geoengineering’s brave new world: Thoughts on the governance of an unprecedented technology. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(2), 249–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldeira, K., & Keith, D. W. (2010). The need for climate engineering research. Issues in Science and Technology, 27(1), 57–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheyney, M. J. (2008). Homebirth as systems-challenging praxis: Knowledge, power, and intimacy in the birthplace. Qualitative Health Research, 18(2), 254–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, S. (2003). Beyond epistemology: A pragmatist approach to feminist science studies. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, S. (2004). Having it all: Naturalized normativity in feminist science studies. Hypatia, 19(1), 102–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fini, R., & Lacetera, N. (2010). Different yokes for different folds: Individual preferences, institutional logics, and the commercialization of academic research. In G. D. Libecap et al. (Eds.), Spanning boundaries and disciplines: University technology commercialization in the idea age (pp. 1–26). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, S. M. (2011, May 1). Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: A commentary on the values of the Royal Society report. Environmental Values, 20(2), 163–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodell, J. (2010). How to cool the planet: Geoengineering and the audacious quest to fix earth’s climate. Chicago: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, J. D. (2013). Arming mother nature: The birth of catastrophic environmentalism. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hercus, C. (2005). Stepping out of line: Becoming and being feminist. Oxford: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. J. (1997). Science studies: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, M. (2014). Can science fix climate change: A case against climate engineering. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, D. W. (2000). Geoengineering the climate: History and prospect. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25(1), 245–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, D. (2013). A case for climate engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kellert, S. H. (1996). Science and literature and philosophy: The case of chaos theory and deconstruction. Configurations, 4, 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintisch, E. (2017). U.S. should pursue controversial geoengineering research, federal scientists say for first time. Science, 9 January 2017. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/us-should-pursue-controversial-geoengineering-research-federal-scientists-say-first. Accessed 15 Jan 2017.

  • Kravitz, B., et al. (2013). Climate model response from the geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP). Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 118, 8320–8332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwa, C., & van Hemert, M. (2011). Engineering the Planet: The issue of biodiversity in the framework of climate manipulation and climate governance. Quaderni, 3, 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, H. (2005). Is science value free?: Values and scientific understanding. Oxford: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1994a). In search of feminist epistemology. Monist, 77, 472–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1994b). The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 135–157). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E., & Lennon, K. (1997). Feminist epistemology as a local epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 71, 19–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luokkanen, M., Huttunen, S., & Hilden, M. (2013). Geoengineering, news media and metaphors: Framing the controversial. Public Understanding of Science, 1–16. http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/14/0963662513475966. Accessed 4 Oct 2016.

  • MacCracken, M. (2009). Beyond mitigation: Potential options for counter-balancing the climatic and environmental consequences of the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, W. M. (1987). Environments and organizations. London: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLafferty, S. L. (2002). Mapping women’s worlds: Knowledge, power and the bounds of GIS. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 9(3), 263–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, A. (2015). What if we lost the sky? Opinion Pages, New York Times. 20 February 2015. https://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/what-if-we-lost-the-sky/?_r=0. Accessed 19 Jan 2015.

  • Nunes, et al. (2011). Fractal-based analysis to identify trend changes in multiple climate time series. Journal of Information and Data Management, Belo Horizonte, 2(1), 51–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardi, M. I., & Smith, F. A. (2012). Paleoecology in an era of climate change: How the past can provide insights into the future. In J. Louys (Ed.), Paleontology in ecology and conservation (pp. 93–116). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peile, C. (1998). Emotional and embodied knowledge: Implications for critical practice. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 25(4), 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, E. (2006). On the very idea of a feminist epistemology for science. Metascience, 15(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Profet, M. (1993). Menstruation as a defense against pathogens transported by sperm. Quarterly Review of Biology, 1, 335–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robock, A. (2008a). 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 64(2), 14–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robock, A. (2008b). Whither geoengineering? SCIENCE-NEW YORK THEN WASHINGTON, 320(5880), 1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, H. (1994). Love, power, and knowledge: Towards a feminist transformation of the sciences. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully, J. L., & Mackenzie, C. (2007). Moral imagination, disability, and embodiment. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(4), 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigloe, J. (2015). Can volcanoes tackle climate change? The Guardian, 10 April 2015. Accessed https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/10/can-volcanoes-tackle-climate-change-frankenstein-mount-tambora

  • Strathern, M. (1989). Comment on ‘Capitalising difference.’. Australian Feminist Studies, 9, 25–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama, M., & Taishi, S. (2010). Interpretation of CBD COP 10 decision on geoengineering. Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (Japan). http://criepi.denken.or.jp/en/serc/research_re/download/10013dp.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2017.

  • Tavris, C. (1992). The mismeasure of woman. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, T. W. (2005). Assessing moral theories. Lessons from feminist philosophy of science. In L. N. Gurley et al. (Eds.), Feminists contest politics and philosophy: Selected papers of the 3rd interdisciplinary conference celebrating international women’s day (pp. 125–138). Bruxelles: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuana, N. (Ed.). (1989). Feminism and science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Global Change Research Program. (2017). National global change research plan 2012–2021: A triennial update. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hateren, J. H. (2013). A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium. Climate Dynamics, 40(11-12), 2651–2670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, R., et al. (2013). Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss. Nature Climate Change, 3(7), 678–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, P., et al. (2012). Impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biological diversity. Part I of: Geoengineering in relation to the convention on biological diversity: technical and regulatory matters, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Technical Series, 66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, J. M., et al. (2016). Development and evaluation of high-resolution climate simulations over the mountainous northeastern United States. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 17(3), 881–896. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0052.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Media and Cultural Studies, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Tina Sikka

Authors
  1. Tina Sikka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sikka, T. (2019). Novelty. In: Climate Technology, Gender, and Justice. SpringerBriefs in Sociology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01147-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01147-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01146-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01147-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation