Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn

Last Name

Hirsch Hadorn

First Name

Gertrude

ORCID

0000-0003-2466-690X

Show all metadata

Search Results

Publications 1 - 10 of 12

Applying big data beyond small problems in climate research
Knüsel, Benedikt; Zumwald, Marius; Baumberger, Christoph; et al. (2019)
Nature Climate Change
Commercial success of big data has led to speculation that big-data-like reasoning could partly replace theory-based approaches in science. Big data typically has been applied to ‘small problems’, which are well-structured cases characterized by repeated evaluation of predictions. Here, we show that in climate research, intermediate categories exist between classical domain science and big data, and that big-data elements have also been applied without the possibility of repeated evaluation. Big-data elements can be useful for climate research beyond small problems if combined with more traditional approaches based on domain-specific knowledge. The biggest potential for big-data elements, we argue, lies in socioeconomic climate research.
What Types of Values Enter Simulation Validation and What are Their Roles?
Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude; Baumberger, Christoph (2019)
Simulation Foundations, Methods and Applications ~ Computer Simulation Validation: Fundamental Concepts, Methodological Frameworks, and Philosophical Perspectives
How to Achieve Effectiveness in Problem-Oriented Landscape Research: The Example of Research on Biotic Invasions
Kueffer, Christoph; Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude (2008)
Living Reviews in Landscape Research
It is increasingly expected from environmental research such as landscape research that science directly contributes to the solving of pressing societal problems. However, despite increased efforts to direct research towards societal problems, it is not obvious if science has become more effective in supporting environmental problem-solving. We present in this article a framework that facilitates the analysis and design of problem-orientation in research fields. We then apply the proposed framework to a concrete example of a problem-oriented landscape research field - namely research on biotic invasions. Invasion research addresses the problem that some organisms, that have been introduced by humans to a new geographic area where they were previously not present, spread in the landscape and pose negative impacts. We argue that problem-oriented research is more than applied research. Besides research on specific questions it also encompasses boundary management, i.e., deliberations among experts and stakeholders on the framing of adequate research questions about processes, values and practices for effective problem-solving. We postulate that such research may assist problem-solving in three ways, by analysing causal relationships (systems knowledge), clarifying conflicts of interests and values (target knowledge), or contributing to the development of appropriate means for action (transformation knowledge). We show that over the past decades a broad range of different research approaches has emerged in the young field of invasion research in order to produce systems, target and transformation knowledge for invasive species management. Early research in the field was dominated by the development of systems knowledge, but increasingly the three knowledge forms are treated more equally. The research field has also become more interdisciplinary and context-specific. Boundary management in invasion research is mainly restricted to informal networks (communities of practice), while formal processes such as transdisciplinary research are scarce. We suggest that the paucity of structured and explicit boundary management processes will limit the future development of a more effective science for invasive species management. In particular, we envisage three obstacles that can only be removed through explicit boundary management. First, the existing theoretical frameworks are currently only partly able to integrate natural and social sciences research on the processes underlying invasions. Second, a clarification of the normative thinking about alien plant invasions is needed. Third, research on transformation knowledge has so far not fundamentally challenged the existing conceptual framing and institutional setup of invasive species management.
Which Methods Are Useful to Justify Public Policies? An Analysis of Cost–Benefit Analysis, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, and Non-Aggregate Indicator Systems
Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude (2021)
Journal for General Philosophy of Science
Science-based methods for assessing the practical rationality of a proposed public policy typically represent assumed future outcomes of policies and values attributed to these outcomes in an idealized, that is, intentionally distorted way and abstracted from aspects that are deemed irrelevant. Different types of methods do so in different ways. As a consequence, they instantiate the properties that result from abstraction and idealization such as conceptual simplicity versus complexity, or comprehensiveness versus selectivity of the values under consideration to different degrees. I hold that none of these methods is best in general. Instead, I opt for the valuation method that is useful for the policy issue in question both in terms of its relevance and in terms of its practicability. Relevance requires that the method can represent and account for what is at stake in the policy issue. Practicability refers to aspects such as easy versus difficult handling of the method. To argue for the claim, I evaluate three types of valuation methods: (1) cost–benefit analysis that rests on unidimensional measurement and ranking, (2) multi-criteria decision analysis that applies multi-dimensional measurement but unidimensional ranking, and (3) non-aggregate indicator systems that operate with multi-dimensional measurement and sometimes also multi-dimensional ranking. Second-order justification indicating whether and how the valuation method chosen is capable of accounting for the substantive value considerations that constitute the real-world policy issue in question renders the conditions on which the results of a proposed policy evaluation rest transparent.
Researchers' roles in knowledge co-production
Pohl, Christian Erik; Rist, Stephan; Zimmermann, Anne; et al. (2010)
Science and Public Policy
Joint problem identification and structuring in environmental research
Wiek, Arnim; Scheringer, Martin; Pohl, Christian Erik; et al. (2007)
GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society
Towards a publication culture in transdisciplinary research
Kueffer, Christoph; Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude; Bammer, Gabriele; et al. (2007)
GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society
Uncertainty Quantification Using Multiple Models - Prospects and Challenges
Knutti, Reto; Baumberger, Christoph; Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude (2019)
Simulation Foundations, Methods and Applications ~ Computer Simulation Validation: Fundamental Concepts, Methodological Frameworks, and Philosophical Perspectives
How Understanding Causal Relations Counts in Criticizing Arguments Against Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
Bodenmann, Tom; Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude (2014)
Meteorologische Zeitschrift
There is a broad range of arguments against anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) brought forward by climate sceptics. It is important to examine those through different perspectives. This paper provides a philosophical analysis of how causal relations are conceived in this debate. The analysis focuses on those sceptics' arguments that do not share properties of causal relations, which are otherwise typical in science. Causal relations (a) are generic relations between event types, (b) they include feedback, (c) they account for complex causes, and (d) they are restricted to a limited number of selected factors, which are defined as event types. A two-step approach was used in structuring this analysis. First, we show that these properties are at the core of natural sciences understanding of causation and how they can be explicated on the basis of the regularity theory of causation. These properties are crucial in the argument for AGCC as depicted in the Fourth Assessment Report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Therefore, IPCC's causal claim is conditional on this understanding of causal relations and, more specifically, the set of examined factors and their definitions. Second, we show how a different understanding of each of these features is a source of disagreement on AGCC by distinguishing between different types of objections, which are illustrated by examples taken from various sources including the Internet. So, pointing out different understandings of causal relations is an appropriate way of criticising this kind of scepticism regarding AGCC.
Transdisziplinäre Umweltforschung: Eine Typologie
Scheringer, Martin; Valsangiacomo, Antonio; Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude; et al. (2005)
GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society

Publications 1 - 10 of 12

Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn

Last Name

First Name

ORCID

Organisational unit

Filters

Search Results