Grand challenges stress the importance of multi-disciplinary research, a multi-actor approach in examining the current state of affairs and exploring possible solutions, multi-level governance and policy coordination across geographical boundaries and policy areas, and a policy environment for enabling change both in science and technology and in society. The special nature of grand challenges poses certain needs in evaluation practice: the need for learning at the operational, policy and, especially, system level; and the importance of a wider set of impacts (...) and behavioural change. The examination of the usefulness of evaluations as learning tools thus becomes relevant as does the way current evaluation practices address broader impacts and issues such as behavioural additionality. The suitability of existing evaluation contexts in meeting the specific issues posed by the ‘grand challenges’ orientation is also worth examining. The paper argues that learning at the policy and system levels is largely unaddressed while concepts such as behavioural additionality are still underexploited. (shrink)

First, with respect to our personal relationship to fossil fuels, this chapter introduces arguments about whether we should or even can address our own usage of fossil fuels. This involves determining whether offsetting emissions is morally required and practically possible. Second, with respect to our relationship with fossil fuels at the national level, it discusses forms of local resistance, especially divestment and pipeline protesting. Finally, with respect to our relationship with fossil fuels at the international level, it considers two types (...) of policy. On the one hand, some have argued that we should stop most trade in oil, on the basis that most oil that is traded is not subject to the control of citizens. On the other hand, some have argued that we should price the costs of fossil fuels so that there are market incentives to avoid digging them out of the ground. (shrink)

History, as a science, has been developing in the context of a concrete epoch of scientific paradigms and types of scientific rationality. The period of constitutionalization of social and humanitarian knowledge and history refers to the middle of the 20th century, to the epoch of a triumphal approach of positivism. The formation of a ‘classical‘ historical science was connected with the fact, that history was not considered to be an art any more. It was proclaimed, that history should be based (...) on natural sciences, dealing with real facts. The review of a ‘classical‘ scientific paradigm of history was stated in the 19th-20th centuries and it was connected with the confirmation of a principal difference between social, humanitarian and scientific knowledge. The discussion of the method and the language of science took the central place. Nonclassical paradigm of social and humanitarian science began to form. At this period, it develops the concept of ‘humanitarian story‘. At the end of the 20th century, the historical science entered postclassical period. This circumstance was accompanied by new methodological approaches with the basis on social and philosophical discourse. Integrative paradigm in history, which is based on the principle of additionality, has been forming. Within this paradigm, history becomes stereoscopic acquiring the character of ‘social and humanitarian‘ history. (shrink)

Impact investing is progressively losing focus in ensuring investments really do make a difference; therefore, the growth of the market may not make real social and environmental change. We propose three ways to put the “impact” back into the heart of impact investment.