No abstract

This article examines the material and ideational conditions in academia and broader society under neoliberalism and their effects on social psychology, both as an academic community and as a source of knowledge production. Social representations theory (SRT)-embedded in the discipline of social psychology-is taken as a case study, which mirrors not only the specific impacts of neoliberalism on the theory and scientific community of SRT, but by extension also on social psychology as a whole. Specifically, we observe how neoliberalism has impacted SRT's ability to address those features of social psychology which led many scholars to label it "a discipline in crisis" by the 1960s and which included its reliance on a realist ontology, positivist epistemology, and quantitative methods, as well as the absence of an axiological frame which led to its distancing away from a humanistic, action-oriented social psychology. Rather than lessening these challenges, it is argued that neoliberalism has, in fact, further entrenched them in two interconnected ways. First, at the level of academic practice, neoliberalism has structured academic work or labor in the neoliberal university/academia in ways that are more consistent with the production of knowledge that subscribes to positivist principles. Second, on a conceptual level, the hegemony of neoliberalism has been accompanied by a corresponding hegemony of conceptual and methodological individualism in the social sciences. This in turn has led to an environment conducive to and encouraging of positivist approaches in social psychology.

If one of the major aspirations of postcolonial theory is to re-establish a balance in the relationship between the (former) colonizer and the colonized by engaging the voices of the "subaltern", and on the other hand to illuminate how power relations of the present are embedded in history (Mills 2007), we argue that important theoretical insights might inform research by anchoring post-colonial theory within a sociopsychological framework. While there is a growing corpus of sociopsychological research articles focusing on how major geopolitical events and historical processes bear on people's lives, we aim to investigate the theoretical potential of postcolonial theory within the disciplines aiming at a sociopsychological approach. By focusing on the social dynamics of power imbalances, post-colonial theory finds its operational meaning: the feelings stemming from actions committed in the past are indeed crucial in determining reparatory attitudes and policies towards members of former colonized groups. Firstly, drawing from the sociopsychological scientific production related to consequences of colonial past, seen in recent years as a growing research interest in the field, we will explore patterns and trends through a thematic analysis of literature. Social Psychology as well as adjacent disciplines can greatly benefit from this theoretical fertilization, especially in the way post-colonial ideologies relate to the symbolic promotion versus exclusion of indigenous culture (Sengupta et al., International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 506-517, 2012). Furthermore, by comparing and contrasting the ideological cosmologies relating to this particular topic, this study aims to establish the state of knowledge in the field, to identify how research methods and thematic fields are paired, to find "gaps" and create spaces for research that become integrative of postcolonial theory. While focusing on academic production, we also hope to contribute to develop the idea of cosmopolitism within academia but also beyond academic doors.

While universities now lie between two philosophical poles – idealism and utilitarianism – the Humboldtian ideal primarily serves to give a humanist glaze to a technocratic discourse. Regardless of its autonomy on paper, the University does not control its finances. This guise of autonomy has set a double authoritarian heteronomy of the university: from increased administrative supervision and from market control. While the current debate is strongly permeated by the idea that we should simultaneously compete with and copy the model of elite US universities, this article presents reflections on how detached from Humboldtian ideals we now are, explores the consequences of that transformational logic and encourages debate through critical distance.

Digitalization is globally transforming the world with profound implications. It has enormous potential to foster progress toward sustainability. However, in its current form, digitalization also continues to enable and encourage practices with numerous unsustainable impacts affecting our environment, ingraining inequality, and degrading quality of life. There is an urgent need to identify such multifaceted impacts holistically. Impact assessment of digital interventions (DIs) leading to digitalization is essential specifically for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Action is required to understand the pursuit of short-term gains toward achieving long-term value-driven sustainable development. We need to understand the impact of DIs on various actors and in diverse contexts. A holistic understanding of the impact will help us align the visions of sustainable development and identify potential measures to mitigate negative short and long-term impacts. The recently developed digitainability assessment framework (DAF) unveils the impact of DIs with an in-depth context-aware assessment and offers an evidence-based impact profile of SDGs at the indicator level. This paper demonstrates how DAF can be instrumental in guiding participatory action for the implementation of digitainability practices. This paper summarizes the insights developed during the Digitainable Spring School 2022 (DSS) on “Sustainability with Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence,” one of whose goals was to operationalize the DAF as a tool in the participatory action process with collaboration and active involvement of diverse professionals in the field of digitalization and sustainability. The DAF guides a holistic context-aware process formulation for a given DI. An evidence-based evaluation within the DAF protocol benchmarks a specific DI’s impact against the SDG indicators framework. The participating experts worked together to identify a DI and gather and analyze evidence by operationalizing the DAF. The four DIs identified in the process are as follows: smart home technology (SHT) for energy efficiency, the blockchain for food security, artificial intelligence (AI) for land use and cover change (LUCC), and Big Data for international law. Each of the four expert groups addresses different DIs for digitainability assessment using different techniques to gather and analyze data related to the criteria and indicators. The knowledge presented here could increase understanding of the challenges and opportunities related to digitainability and provide a structure for developing and implementing robust digitainability practices with data-driven insights.