Journal of Socialomics

Decarbonisation Using Lexicometric Analysis in Social Sciences

Zhang Xingjian^* Department of Communication and Social Research, Wuhan University, Hubei, China
^*Correspondence: Zhang Xingjian, Department of Communication and Social Research, Wuhan University, Hubei, China, Email:

Received: 03-May-2022, Manuscript No. JSC-22-17133; Editor assigned: 06-May-2022, Pre QC No. JSC-22-17133 (PQ); Reviewed: 20-May-2022, QC No. JSC-22-17133; Revised: 27-May-2022, Manuscript No. JSC-22-17133 (R); Published: 03-Jun-2022, DOI: 10.35248/ 2167-0358.22.11.122

Description

Sustainable transition processes are increasingly defined by terms like decarbonisation, low carbon development, and low carbon transition. These mechanisms actually involve altering both the upstream and downstream aspects of energy systems, such as the coal and fossil fuel extraction industries, energy-intensive sectors, buildings, transportation, and other service sectors. As a result, decarbonisation is a multifaceted concept involving problems and solutions, biophysical and technological issues, and multiple scales, sites, and levels of analysis and intervention. Coal and Carbon Intensive Regions (CCIR) are terms that have been coined to describe the numerous geographical, social, cultural, and political dimensions that characterize complex systems. However, this increases the number of actors who should be considered as part of the decarbonisation process, including extraction industries, carbon-intensive sectors and services, as well as local and imagined communities [1].

Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of a systemic and Tran's disciplinary approach that takes into account the various dimensions and actors involved in policy design and implementation. Even so, research suggests what sectoriality and a lack of systemic awareness can result in reverse causality and unplanned backlashes, such as those observed in the case of biofuels manufacture of high efficiency building structures, where local benefits can have unintended societal and ecological consequences. On the opposite, a variety of perspectives emphasize the importance of evolutionary interactions and alignment between ecological, technological, and societal transformations in accelerating transition. To understand this complex nature, the social sciences have investigated decarbonizing processes as portion of social economic shift patterns towards clean power systems radical forms of change and social economic reconstruction changes in social characterizations practices and customs and history pathways [2].

Decarbonisation has also been investigated in terms of the effects it could have on communities and individuals, either as a source of happiness and an increase in perceived (energy) justice, or as a cause of community disturbance and disconnection. Furthermore, changes in the power system have an impact on a variety of social issues, ranging from mobility to gender relationships to public health and welfare. In short, the topics associated with decarbonisation are varied. Provided their importance in policy and research, a thorough review of the research journals is required to chart how the term has been defined and used, as well as to organize themself in this rapidly expanding field of study. An examination of publishing trends from 1995 to 2014 reveals that research conducted in the field by China, the United States, and the United Kingdom has played a critical role in terms of quantity and influence. Wang and colleagues' study focused on a few major themes, including global warming, wind power and fuel sources, the low-carbon economic system and its path of development, energy levels, and sustainable development. Their literature review of the utilization of these three terms reveals that low-carbon advancement and low-carbon transformation are regarded as imaginative concepts of accomplishing net-zero emissions, whereas decarbonizing is used to suggest useful and prescriptive ways to achieve such a long-term sight [3].

The current paper updates and extending on previous reports, focusing on how the social sciences are approaching the topic of carbon reduction. The social sciences' contribution to energy research is increasingly recognized and deemed necessary. To map the themes addressed and identify emerging issues, we conduct a systematic and extensive review of scientific articles on decarbonisation published in the last five years (2015-2020) that fall under the broad umbrella of the social sciences. We examine this corpus of scientific literature using a lexicometric approach. This entails operating automated content assessments that allow us to synthesize the content of a large body of material based on word counts placed in relation to several variables, such as specific journals or a specific time period [4].

The whole kind of literature review has been shown to be effective in a variety of settings. The generated summary can then be examined in conjunction with bibliometric indexes. This method also allows us to look beyond the definition of concepts like decarbonisation and examine how they are used in different contexts, examining how they have changed over time, across discourses, and in different journals. We used only one database during the identification phase to improve the reproducibility of our dataset construction and make future updates easier. We selected the SCOPUS database for two primary reasons: It covers more journals and has a broader scope than other bibliographic databases, and it has fewer systematic errors than other large databases. Although it is less comprehensive than search engines such as Google Scholar, it is more dispersed for our purposes because it excludes grey literature such as conference proceedings while covering all of the key literature [5].

REFERENCES

1. Bagot RC, Meaney MJ (2010). ‘Epigenetics and the biological basis of gene environment interactions’. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.2010; 49 (8): 752-771.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

2. Buch-Hansen H. Social network analysis and critical realism. J Theory Soc Behav 2014.44(3): 306-325.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

3. Giglietto F, Rossi L, Bennato D. The open laboratory: Limits and possibilities of using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as a research data source. J Technol Hum  Serv. 2012; 30(4): 145-159.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

4. Iggers GG. Further remarks about early uses of the term ‘social science’. J Hist Ideas.1959; 20(3): 433-436.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

5. Legewie J. Racial profiling and use of force in police stops: How local events trigger periods of increased discrimination. Am J Sociol. 2016;122(2): 379-424.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]