Over the last few decades climate change has been gaining importance in international scientific and political debates. However, the social sciences, especially in Latin America, have only lately become interested in the subject and their approach is still vague. Scientific understanding of global environmental change and the process of designing public policies to face them are characterized by their complexity as well as by epistemic and normative uncertainties. This makes it necessary to problematize the way in which research efforts understand ‘the social’ of climate change. How do ‘the climate’ and ‘the social’ interpenetrate as scientific objects? What does the resulting field look like? Is the combination capable of promoting reflexivity and collaboration on the issue, or does it merely become dispersed with diffuse boundaries? Our paper seeks to answer these and other related questions using Chile as a case study and examining peer-reviewed scientific research on the topic. By combining in-depth qualitative content analysis of each paper with a statistical meta-analysis, we were able to: characterize the key content and forms of such literature; identify divisions and patterns within it; and, discuss some factors and trends that may help explain these. We conclude that the literature displays two competing trends: while it is inclined to become fragmented beyond the scope of the ‘mitigation’ black box, it also tends to cluster along the lines of methodological distinctions traditionally contested within the social sciences. This, in turn, highlights the persistence of disciplinary divisions within an allegedly interdisciplinary field.

中文翻译：

---

气候变化研究中的“社会”是什么？智利科学代表案例研究

在过去的几十年里，气候变化在国际科学和政治辩论中变得越来越重要。然而，社会科学，尤其是拉丁美洲的社会科学，直到最近才对这个学科产生兴趣，他们的方法仍然含糊不清。对全球环境变化的科学理解以及为应对这些变化制定公共政策的过程的特点是其复杂性以及认知和规范的不确定性。这使得有必要对研究工作理解气候变化“社会性”的方式进行问题化。“气候”和“社会”如何作为科学对象相互渗透？结果字段是什么样的？这种组合是否能够促进在这个问题上的反思和合作，或者它只是被分散的边界分散了？我们的论文试图以智利作为案例研究，并检查有关该主题的同行评审科学研究来回答这些和其他相关问题。通过将每篇论文的深入定性内容分析与统计元分析相结合，我们能够： 描述此类文献的关键内容和形式；确定其中的划分和模式；并且，讨论一些可能有助于解释这些的因素和趋势。我们得出的结论是，文献显示出两种相互竞争的趋势：虽然它倾向于变得支离破碎，超出了“缓解”黑匣子的范围，但它也倾向于沿着社会科学中传统上存在争议的方法论区别的路线聚集在一起。这反过来，