Is thinking about the world in abstract, generalised terms useful? What is the point of spending years arguing over nuanced and sophisticated understanding of society? Does applied theory exist? To make theory ‘work’ do you have to add too many factors, caveats and contextual consideration to actually be generalised? Does anyone, even elite professors, really understand theory? Is ‘understanding’ theory valuable?
-
Recent Posts
- Slow Science and Work-Life Balance
- Unsustainably clean and smooth
- New research shows that consuming less makes us more happy- some NYE opinions in SydSvenskan
- Don’t let flying for work become normal again
- Why don’t we care that the ultra-rich are fucking up our climate?
- The girl gang that vanished
- Laconia – living alone consumption impact – Marie SkÅ‚odowska-Curie Actions
- Music festivals can show the way to sustainability – debate article in Dagens Nyheter
- En halstvätthistoria av Annika Rullgård
- Hackademia
- Response to my research
- Varför duscha vi så ofta? Jag pratar renlighetsnormer med Lena Nordlund på Vetenskapsradion
- Respons på en artikel i svd
- The disappearing communal laundry room in Sweden: a symptom of individual comforts winning over sustainability?
- Climate smart in the 50s
- Blog Post on Extinction Rebellion for LUCSUS
- Response and Responsibility
- Things I can see through the window
- Do less to save the environment
- Article in Sydsvenskan Newspaper
Archives
A good point in your PhD, eh 🙂
My humble take: theory helps us make sense of the world – not just in academia but as humanity. Of course there are all those factors, caveats and contextual considerations – now I try to see them as enriching, always. I did not, for quite a time.