Context in Action and How to Study It

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Organizational Life ◽  
Integration Of Care ◽  
Research Experiences ◽  
Organization And Management ◽  
Care Outcomes ◽  
Definition Of

The concept of context is a cornerstone of a large part of social science research, particularly in organization and management studies, yet it has received little theoretical and methodological attention in lieu of its relevance. This book offers a definition of context as a theoretical construct, a discussion of the methodological implications of this, and a framework for how to reflect upon and operationalize the role of context in the different stages of a research process, from formulating research questions to analyzing and writing about results. The chapters presented here integrate lessons derived from various research experiences across the complex and dynamic field of health care. Contributors share their experiences with theorizing about and empirically studying significant organizational phenomena such as implementation of policy, organizational change, integration of care, patient involvement, human-technology interactions in practice, and the interplay between work environment and care outcomes in eldercare. These contributions exemplify how a nuanced approach to context might unfold in different fields, through different designs, methods, and analytical lenses. Relevant to researchers and practitioners, within both healthcare, organization and management studies, and the social sciences more broadly, this book leaves the reader with a practical framework from which to carry out contextual research and analysis and a gain deeper understanding of the significance of context in organizational life.

scholarly journals Has the Credibility of the Social Sciences Been Credibly Destroyed? Reanalyzing the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” Project

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 237802312110244
Author(s):  
Katrin Auspurg ◽  
Josef Brüderl
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Causal Reasoning ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Skin Tone ◽  
Data Set ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Many ◽  
Definition Of

In 2018, Silberzahn, Uhlmann, Nosek, and colleagues published an article in which 29 teams analyzed the same research question with the same data: Are soccer referees more likely to give red cards to players with dark skin tone than light skin tone? The results obtained by the teams differed extensively. Many concluded from this widely noted exercise that the social sciences are not rigorous enough to provide definitive answers. In this article, we investigate why results diverged so much. We argue that the main reason was an unclear research question: Teams differed in their interpretation of the research question and therefore used diverse research designs and model specifications. We show by reanalyzing the data that with a clear research question, a precise definition of the parameter of interest, and theory-guided causal reasoning, results vary only within a narrow range. The broad conclusion of our reanalysis is that social science research needs to be more precise in its “estimands” to become credible.

Navigeren in het onderzoeksveld en het onderzoekersveld: reflecties op onderzoekspositionaliteit in (vermeend) insideronderzoek

KWALON ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-51
Author(s):  
Jing Hiah
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Insider Research ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract Navigating the research and researchers’ field: Reflections on positionality in (assumed) insider research To challenge rigid ideas about objectivity in social science research, qualitative researchers question their own subjectivity in the research process. In such endeavors, the focus is mainly on the positionality of the researcher vis-à-vis their respondents in the research field. In this contribution, I argue that the positionality of the researcher in academia, what I refer to as the researchers’ field, is equally important as it influences the way research findings are received and evaluated. Through reflections on positionality in my insider research concerning labour relations and exploitation in Chinese migrant businesses in the Netherlands and Romania, I explore how my positionality as an insider negatively influenced my credibility and approachability in the researchers’ field. I conclude that it is necessary to pay more attention to researchers’ positionality in academia as it may shed light on and make it possible to discuss the written and unwritten standards of researchers’ credibility and approachability as an academic in the researchers’ field. Accordingly, this could provide insights into the causes of inequalities in academia and contribute to the current challenge for more diversity in academia.

scholarly journals Is Banning Significance Testing the Best Way to Improve Applied Social Science Research? – Questions on

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-105
Author(s):  
Thees F Spreckelsen ◽  
Mariska Van Der Horst
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Significance Testing ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Applied Social Science

Significance testing is widely used in social science research. It has long been criticised on statistical grounds and problems in the research practice. This paper is an applied researchers’ response to Gorard's (2016) ‘Damaging real lives through obstinacy: re-emphasising why significance testing is wrong’ in Sociological Research Online 21(1). He participates in this debate concluding from the issues raised that the use and teaching of significance testing should cease immediately. In that, he goes beyond a mere ban of significance testing, but claims that researchers still doing this are being unethical. We argue that his attack on applied scientists is unlikely to improve social science research and we believe he does not sufficiently prove his claims. In particular we are concerned that with a narrow focus on statistical significance, Gorard misses alternative, if not more important, explanations for the often-lamented problems in social science research. Instead, we argue that it is important to take into account the full research process, not just the step of data analysis, to get a better idea of the best evidence regarding a hypothesis.

scholarly journals Users and Social Science Research: Policy, Problems and Possibilities

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 69-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Rappert
Keyword(s):  
Research Policy ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
User Involvement ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Policy Problems

Recent times have seen a significant reorientation in public funding for academic research across many countries. Public bodies in the UK have been at the forefront of such activities, typically justified in terms of a need to meet the challenges of international competitiveness and improve quality of life. One set of mechanisms advanced for further achieving these goals is the incorporation of users’ needs into various aspects of the research process. This paper examines some of the consequences of greater user involvement in the UK Economic and Social Research Council by drawing on both empirical evidence and more speculative argumentation. In doing so it poses some of the dilemmas for conceptualizing proper user involvement.

scholarly journals (Re)conceptualizing “Polydrug Use”: Capturing the Complexity of Combining Substances

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 400-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pekka Hakkarainen ◽  
Aileen O’Gorman ◽  
François Lamy ◽  
Kati Kataja
Keyword(s):  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
People Who Use Drugs ◽  
Cultural Meanings ◽  
Polydrug Use ◽  
Qualitative Case Studies ◽  
Sensory Effects ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Short Time

The use of multiple psychoactive substances is a widespread phenomenon among people who use drugs. Yet the concept of polydrug use is poorly defined in the social sciences. As a result, theoretical and empirical knowledge of polydrug use is underdeveloped; approaches to measuring polydrug use are inconsistent; and understandings of the cultural meanings of combining substances are limited. This article draws on a collaborative synthesis of three qualitative case studies of polydrug use from four countries: Australia and France, Finland, and Ireland. All three studies explored the practice of substance combination, or “combos” using the lens of intentionality, functionality, and social setting. In addition, the studies shared a common concern with teasing out the rationale for substance combining, and the controls used to balance pleasures with risks, beyond the simple physiological or sensory effects of substances. Our analysis leads us to recommend that a standard definition of polydrug use be adopted for future social science research—that is, the ingestion of two or more substances in combination, at the same time or in temporal proximity, so that the effects of different substances overlap. For analytical purposes, we suggest two subcategories: simultaneous and sequential intake. Moreover, we contend that it is the intention, meaning, and socio-structural context underpinning the use of substance combinations that is central to understanding polydrug use. Consequently, we suggest an adaptation of Zinberg’s seminal concept to one of “drug combo, set, and setting” to incorporate an analysis of the effects of using substances together, or in sequence within a short time frame.

scholarly journals Letter from the Editor

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 575-578
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
International Business ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Organization And Management ◽  
The Social ◽  
Intellectual Challenge

This issue of MOR closes out volume 11, which has witnessed the transition of the journal's domain to attract and publish social science research underlying an across-the-board range of themes in management, organizations, strategy, and public policy in the context of China and all transforming economies. The challenge for MOR is to be open to indigenous theories of management, organization, entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic development. However, this is not about contradicting the accumulated body of extant management and international business scholarship. At its core the intellectual challenge is to recognize that history, stage of economic development, institutional configuration, cultural differences, and national ambitions have the potential to give rise to new forms of organization and management. The challenge for MOR is to encourage and publish such research that meets the state-of-the-art scholarship criteria of the social sciences.

RESEARCH STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING NEW KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY

2000 ◽  
Vol 08 (01) ◽  
pp. 47-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
GUS M GEURSEN
Keyword(s):  
Social Science Research ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Theory Development ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Knowledge Generation ◽  
Research Model ◽  
Research Strategies ◽  
New Knowledge

The purpose of this paper is to examine a traditional academic research model frequently used in scholarly papers and the implications of this model in restricting growth and quality of new knowledge generation. The paper contends a traditional academic research process (TARP) is evident in business and the other social science research. It identifies concerns about the process and how it restricts new theory development. The paper provides an alternative model, the higher academic research model (HARP) which is characterised by closer interaction between research processes and phenomena under investigation. The paper concludes by demonstrating the increased output achievement of the new model.

scholarly journals Gatekeepers in Agricultural Extension Research: A Retrospective Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 94-110
Author(s):  
Fallys Masambuka-Kanchewa ◽  
Kevan Lamm ◽  
Alexa Lamm
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Social Scientists

Social science research plays an important role in transforming agriculture as it provides an invaluable source of information for policy formulation and implementation. Social scientists collecting data in rural communities, where the majority of agricultural production occurs, around the globe frequently pass through a layer of gatekeepers to access research communities and subjects. Gatekeepers serve a critical role in access to subjects but their influence on the research process in many countries and contexts has not been examined thoroughly. The findings of this phenomenology study, conducted in four Sub-Saharan Africa countries, indicated gatekeepers provide invaluable access to individuals and perspectives that may otherwise be inaccessible. However, the findings indicated gatekeepers may also have a vested interests in the research being conducted. Among others, gatekeepers may introduce selection bias to the research process. Therefore, it is important for social scientists working in countries where gatekeepers are involved in the research process to understand the limitations gatekeepers introduce when conducting social science research. Having such knowledge is necessary when interpreting research results and will help researchers be cognizant of the power dynamics that may exist between gatekeepers and those they represent as well as implications on the research process. Keywords: Gatekeepers, social science research, objectivity, power structures, extension, access, research subjects

scholarly journals Reflexive Poetry

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-81
Author(s):  
Eric Van Giessen
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Academic Language ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Faith Communities ◽  
Science Writing ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Sacred Stories

These four poems are excerpts from a multifaceted project entitled Queerly Faithful: A Queer-Poet Community Autoethnography on Identity and Belonging in Faith Communities. This project attempts to bolster and critique contemporary studies of queer and faith identities as they manifest in the lives of queer people of faith by approaching the subject with a queer sensibility (Holman Jones & Adams 2010: 204). One facet of this approach involved my use of poetry as a personal reflexive medium on the research process itself. The poems invite the reader into my experience as I wrestle with articulating methodology, theory framing, data presentation, and the questions and challenges of producing a fixed document to present the findings of a queer project that resists fixedness. By blurring the lines between poetry/narrative/storytelling and social science writing, I invite the readers “to become coparticipants, engaging the storyline morally, emotionally, aesthetically, and intellectually” (Ellis & Bochner 2000: 745). The poems, which are scattered throughout the research paper, nuance the traditional academic language and prose analysis in the paper and serve to challenge conceptions of ‘proper’ social science writing and position the writing itself as a method of inquiry (Prendergast, Leggo & Sameshima 2009; Richardson & St. Pierre 2005; Richardson 1993). The poems in isolation, as presented here, invite the reader to consider the strengths and challenges of social science research and articulate my struggle to honour the sacred stories of my participants through fixed language. The poems play with the questions: what does it mean to be a social justice researcher and how might our work, methodologically as well as topically, critique and undermine oppressive epistemologies that elevate and prioritize certain voices over others?

scholarly journals The ›Head of Household‹

Administory ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-123
Author(s):  
Kerstin Brückweh
Keyword(s):  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
General Question ◽  
Basic Question ◽  
Specific Class ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Head Of Household ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Reference Person

Abstract The household forms an important category in social science research. It is used to collect data, to classify it and to represent the results. However, what seems to be a simple listing of facts becomes less clear when a basic question is raised: What is a household? Is it a family living under one roof? Is a roof limited to a house, or does a flat already constitute a household? Do members of a household have to be officially related, meaning married, adopted etc., or even related by blood? And how do households and definitions of households differ over time and space? Some definitions like the United Nations’s dwelling concept, for example, sound pragmatic with little regard to the social relationships of the actual human beings living in a household. However, there are indeed power relations within a household (e.g. between parents and children). Social scientists also observed these everyday asymmetries and therefore constructed a hierarchy in social classifications when they placed the household in a specific class according to the ›Head of Household‹ or the ›Household Reference Person‹, the ›Chief Wage Earner‹, the ›Householder‹ etc. The different designations of the reference person indicate that it is not an easy task to name this person or to define this person without a normative bias. By taking the example of Great Britain, this article demonstrates that the definition of the ›Head of Household‹ was a normative category rather than a descriptive one, meaning that it was less able to facilitate analysis of social reality and that it fortified a normative view with the help of statistics. While feminists and other historical actors in different states, for example the U.S., already criticised the normative bias of the definition in the 1960s and 1970s, a different question seems to be of equal or even greater importance to the historian: How, when and why did different nations and professions decide to drop the normative in favour of a descriptive definition of the ›Head of Household‹? This leads to a more general question: How did administrators, statisticians and other survey researchers deal with the aim of long-term stability of statistical categories for the sake of comparability, e.g. in a national census, on the one hand, and with adaption to societal change on the other hand? In taking the example of the United Kingdom, the following story combines aspects of a history of knowledge with administrative history.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document