The Race Project: Researching Race in the Social Sciences Researchers, Measures, and Scope of Studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 300-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Garcia

AbstractWhile the concept and measurement of race has been a longstanding focus of social science research, capturing its significance requires a broader notion than utilizing only racial group categories. More recently, race has been treated as both a “characteristic” and a set of experiences that affect a multitude of life conditions and outcomes. This discussion and analysis moves away from treating race as only a categorical and static characteristic to a multi-dimensional concept that is dynamic, relational, and represents the intersection of individual, ecological, and structural components. By exploring the data collection of the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research and studies that include race as a variable, we were able to trace how race has been used by social scientists over the past 60 years. Using an extensive coding protocol, we have attained key characteristics of the principal investigator(s) (PI), funders, scope of the overall study, and the use of different measures of race. As a result, this “meta-analysis” of social science surveys enabled this researcher to examine how these studies use a wide scope of racial “variables,” and the way in which PI characteristics affected the inclusion of race-related items. In addition, bivariate analysis is presented to examine social scientists’ tendencies in investigating race and inclusion of qualitative examples of item wordings and response categories. This overview of social science studies is placed in the context of conceptual and measurement issues surrounding the use and meaning of race. Hopefully this can serve to advance the discussion and strategic approaches in doing research about race and what should be incorporated in studying race as a lived experience.

1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-306
Author(s):  
Hussain Mutalib

The Muslim Social Science Scholars’ Forum of ASEAN (Associationof Southeast Asian Nations) held its Second Meeting in Bangkok, Thailandfrom Mubrram 20-23, 1409lSeptember 1-4, 1988, under the auspices of theFoundation for Democracy and Development Studies. The theme for themeeting was “Muslim Scholars and Social Science Research,” aimed atdocumenting, discussing and analyzing the types of scholarship or researchthat have been done about Muslims in the Southeast Asian region, particularlywithin the ASEAN countries.A select group of Muslim social science scholars (together with someMuslim politicians) from the countries within ASEAN, except Brunei, wereinvited to the “Forum.” They included: Drs. Dawan Raharjo and NurcholisMajid, and Professor Moeslim (Indonesia), Drs. Surin Pitsuwan, SeneeMadmarn and Chaiwat (Thailand), Drs. Yusof Talib and Hussain Mutalib(Singapore), Professors Taib Osman and Wan Hashim and Umar Farouq(Malaysia), and Drs. Carmen Abubakar, Madale and Mastura (Philippines).All participants were either presenters of papers or discussants.Throughout the four-day deliberations, participants discussed the typesof studies and research that have been the focus of scholars studying Muslimcommunities in the ASEAN region. Some titles of papers included: “MuslimStudies in the Phillipines;” “Social Science Research in Thailand;” and “SocialScience Research in Malaysia: the Case of Islamic Resurgence.”Given the “closed-door” ‘nature of the meeting (participation was byinvitation only), there was adequate time for a more intensive, frank andthorough discussions of the papers. Problems and issues were aired and posed,and alternative options offered by participants. For every paper, there wasa discussant; hence, the issues that came out of the papers managed to beseen, discussed and appreciated from a more complete and balancedperspective.By and large, the Bangkok meeting was a successful one. Theapproximately twenty participants were generally pleased with the high qualityof papers presented and the sense of brotherhood that prevailed. The warmhospitality of the hosts from Thailand was also appreciated ...


1990 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 149-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adelaide H. Villmoare

In reading the essays by David M. Trubek and John Esser and Boaventura de Sousa Santos, I thought about what I call epistemological moments that have provided contexts within which to understand the relationship between social science research and politics. I will sketch four moments and suggest that I find one of them more compelling than the others because it speaks particularly to social scientists with critical, democratic ambitions and to Trubek and Esser's concerns about politics and the intellectual vitality of the law and society movement.


1970 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 421-456
Author(s):  
A. P. M. Coxon ◽  
Patrick Doreian ◽  
Robin Oakley ◽  
Ian B. Stephen ◽  
Bryan R. Wilson ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel L. Goroff ◽  
Neil Anthony Lewis ◽  
Anne M. Scheel ◽  
Laura Danielle Scherer ◽  
Joshua A Tucker

Social science has a ‘context sensitivity’ problem: the people that we study, and the situations they engage in, are so complex and variable that predicting how they will think, feel, and behave in a given situation is very challenging. Even when we are able to make such predictions, it is often unclear how accurate they will be if some feature of the studied subjects and/or situation changes. This limits the utility of our research for application and policy, as the ‘contextual factors’ that might change our conclusions are often unknown. It is time to address this context sensitivity problem in social science research. While do not yet know how to solve it, we believe social scientists can make great progress by working together to build an inference engine.


2020 ◽  
pp. 79-110
Author(s):  
Paul Thompson ◽  
Ken Plummer ◽  
Neli Demireva

This chapter looks at how social research gradually became organized through the work of our pioneers. It starts by looking at the growth of both universities and academic disciplines (like anthropology and sociology) as key backgrounds for understanding the growth of organized research. A major section discusses a range of early research agencies — the Colonial Research Council, Political and Economic Planning (PEP), the Institute of Community Studies, the CSO (Central Statistical Office), the SSRC, Social Science Research Council, and the UK Data Archive. Some new university-based centres are also considered: medical social science at Aberdeen, methods at Surrey and the BCCS (Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies). There are brief discussions of the Banbury Study with Meg Stacey and Colin Bell; and the Affluent Worker study. The chapter closes with some pioneering work on quantitative research, longitudinal studies and the rise of computing.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (8-9) ◽  
pp. 943-947 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Soler ◽  
Aitor Gómez

Social science research has been attacked by neoliberal thinkers who allege that such research lacks economic objectives. In the face of neoliberal and positivist criteria for evaluating the social impact of social science inquiry, social science researchers are developing qualitative evaluation methodologies through which we can have direct contact with citizens. These qualitative methodologies declare our social responsibility as social researchers in addressing relevant problems, especially those affecting the most vulnerable people. From these qualitative methodologies, the most vulnerable groups are included in the assessment of the social impacts of social research. Some examples of people who have participated in this qualitative evaluation include women, youth, immigrants, and Roma organizations. Participants perceived social science researchers as being far from their social reality, but in this research, they began to overcome their skepticism that social science research can help to solve those problems affecting their everyday lives.


1970 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-138
Author(s):  
L. P. Hartzler

This two-day conference, sponsored by Stanford's Committee on African Studies, was possibly the first gathering of its kind outside Liberia since the American Colonisation Society ceased sending emigrants to the West African Republic at the turn of the century. It was organised by Dr Martin Lowenkopf, and was attended by over 40 social scientists, including six Liberians at present studying in the United States.


2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Stuhlmacher ◽  
Treena Gillespie

AbstractNo longer on the fringes of research design, meta-analysis has established a methodological foothold in social science research. The use of meta-analysis as a research method to study social conflict, however, remains limited. This article is designed to increase the accessibility of meta-analyses, while identifying issues and controversies. To this end, we offer examples from our own experiences in an overview of the development, choices, and challenges of a meta-analysis, as well as more technical references for further instruction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document