Suchergebnisse

The transformation of the understanding and implementation of environmental policy in modern Russia brings the need for an interdisciplinary approach to the training of specialists working in this field to the forefront. Civil society is actively involved in the decision-making process on environmental protection. As a unifying principle for politics and ecology, the public ecology that is still being formed in Russia has been chosen. It actively involves society in generating, solving and evaluating these decisions in the political, social and environmental spheres. In the Perm Region, there are frequent cases of integration of experts from the field of ecology and politics to initiate and make management decisions on the environmental agenda and within the framework of sustainable development. This expert community decided to join forces and develop a joint master program "Public Ecology and Public Policy". Graduates of the program will be able to work in state and local authorities responsible for the environmental situation. They will become versatile specialists and will influence management decision-making, justifying them in a reasoned manner. In addition, they will be able to apply their knowledge in the field of environmental consulting, marketing and communications, as well as journalism that reveals the environmental problems of modern society.

This book at the intersection of natural sciences, economics, and water engineering aims to reduce the gaps between economic theory, natural sciences, and engineering practice. Based on an extended thermodynamic approach, the authors explain which economic assumptions are acceptable for constructing a dynamic model that is consistent with the natural sciences. In particular, the special role of water in the production and reproduction activities will be considered as an integral component. Water is generated in a separate water treatment process and is used to transport the unavoidable by-prod.

This article is devoted to one of the most important problems of forming a mechanism for assessing the quality of training of university graduates whose professions require deep knowledge in the field of natural sciences. The insufficient degree of research of this mechanism is discussed, which by default should include assessment of quality and reliability of educational programmes in physics, chemistry, mathematics and others. The authors of the article propose to assess the quality of natural science training on the basis of tested tools of universal quality management, traditionally applied to the evaluation of goods and services. For this purpose, the authors highlighted the distinctive features of the quality of educational services from the quality of goods and formulated the content of indicators of the quality of educational services. The article notes the defining indicators of quality for educational programmes of natural science orientation. The scientific methodology of adapted quality management plays a leading role in the development of natural science education according to the authors. The basic model is Kano model, according to which the content of quality values of natural science training is formulated. It
is concluded that the process of updating natural science educational programmes should be based on data on monitoring the requirements of employers and students themselves in the form of a set of indicators of advanced quality.

Interdisciplinary research within the field of sustainability studies often faces incompatible ontological assumptions deriving from natural and social sciences. The importance of this fact is often underrated and sometimes leads to the wrong strategies. We distinguish between two broad approaches in interdisciplinarity: unificationism and pluralism. Unificationism seeks unification and perceives disciplinary boundaries as conventional, representing no long-term obstacle to progress, whereas pluralism emphasizes more ephemeral and transient interdisciplinary connections and underscores the autonomy of the disciplines with respect to one another. Both approaches have their merits and pitfalls. Unification runs the risk of scientific imperialism, while pluralism can result in insurmountable barriers between disciplines. We made a comparison of eight distinct interdisciplinary attempts at integration of knowledge across social and natural sciences. The comparison was carried out as four pairwise comparisons: environmental economics versus ecological economics, environmental history versus historical ecology, resilience theory versus political ecology, and socio-biology versus actor-network theory. We conclude by showing that none of these prominent eight interdisciplinary fields in and of itself manages to provide, in a satisfactory way, such an integrated understanding of sustainability. We argue for pluralism and advocate complex ways of articulating divergent ontological assumptions. This is not equivalent to pursuing knowledge unification either through scientific imperialism or by catering to the requirements of narrow practical utility. It means prioritizing interdisciplinary integration by simultaneously acknowledging the role of societal and natural factors in accounting for sustainability issues.

Matter and Form explores the relationship between natural science and political philosophy from the classical to contemporary eras, taking an interdisciplinary approach to the philosophic understanding of the structure and process of the natural world and its impact on the history of political philosophy. It illuminates the importance of philosophic reflection on material nature to moral and political theorizing, mediating between the sciences and humanities and making a contribution to ending the isolation between them.

21st-century learning requires the ability to communicate, think critically, think and act creatively, and collaborate. One of the efforts recommended by experts to achieve this is through science practicum activities and project learning. Combining science practicum activities and project learning produces a mini-project practicum model. The science practicum mini-project model that uses, performs, and utilises naturally is expected to improve students' science process skills. This literature review aims to describe in more detail related to science practicum, natural mini projects and science process skills. This article is reviewed through analysis and synthesis of articles originating from reputable journal articles, such as Scopus and Sinta. The results of this study recommend an alternative model of the mini-project science practicum as a solution to improve science process skills.

Interdisciplinary research within the field of sustainability studies often faces incompatible ontological assumptions deriving from natural and social sciences. The importance of this fact is often underrated and sometimes leads to the wrong strategies. We distinguish between two broad approaches in interdisciplinarity: unificationism and pluralism. Unificationism seeks unification and perceives disciplinary boundaries as conventional, representing no long-term obstacle to progress, whereas pluralism emphasizes more ephemeral and transient interdisciplinary connections and underscores the autonomy of the disciplines with respect to one another. Both approaches have their merits and pitfalls. Unification runs the risk of scientific imperialism, while pluralism can result in insurmountable barriers between disciplines. We made a comparison of eight distinct interdisciplinary attempts at integration of knowledge across social and natural sciences. The comparison was carried out as four pairwise comparisons: environmental economics versus ecological economics, environmental history versus historical ecology, resilience theory versus political ecology, and socio-biology versus actor-network theory. We conclude by showing that none of these prominent eight interdisciplinary fields in and of itself manages to provide, in a satisfactory way, such an integrated understanding of sustainability. We argue for pluralism and advocate complex ways of articulating divergent ontological assumptions. This is not equivalent to pursuing knowledge unification either through scientific imperialism or by catering to the requirements of narrow practical utility. It means prioritizing interdisciplinary integration by simultaneously acknowledging the role of societal and natural factors in accounting for sustainability issues. ; Peer reviewed