The People of Puerto Rico
            . A study in social anthropology. Julian H. Steward, Robert A. Manners, Eric R. Wolf, Elena P. Seda, Sidney W. Mintz, and Raymond L. Scheele. A Social Science Research Center Study, College of Social Sciences, University of Puerto Rico. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1956. 540 pp. Illus. $10.

Abstract Background Previous studies have indicated that failure to report ethical approval is common in health science articles. In social sciences, the occurrence is unknown. The Swedish Ethics Review Act requests that sensitive personal data, in accordance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), should undergo independent ethical review, irrespective of academic discipline. We have explored the adherence to this regulation. Methods Using the Web of Science databases, we reviewed 600 consecutive articles from three domains (health sciences with and without somatic focus and social sciences) based on identifiable personal data published in 2020. Results Information on ethical review was lacking in 12 of 200 health science articles with somatic focus (6%), 21 of 200 health science articles with non-somatic focus (11%), and in 54 of 200 social science articles (27%; p < 0.001 vs. both groups of health science articles). Failure to report on ethical approval was more common in (a) observational than in interventional studies (p < 0.01), (b) articles with only 1–2 authors (p < 0.001) and (c) health science articles from universities without a medical school (p < 0.001). There was no significant association between journal impact factor and failure to report ethical approval. Conclusions We conclude that reporting of research ethics approval is reasonably good, but not strict, in health science articles. Failure to report ethical approval is about three times more frequent in social sciences compared to health sciences. Improved adherence seems needed particularly in observational studies, in articles with few authors and in social science research.

Download Full-text

The Inference Engine: A Grand Challenge to Address the Context Sensitivity Problem in Social Science Research

10.31234/osf.io/j8b9a ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Daniel L. Goroff ◽

Neil Anthony Lewis ◽

Anne M. Scheel ◽

Laura Danielle Scherer ◽

Joshua A Tucker

Keyword(s):

Social Science ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Science Research ◽

Inference Engine ◽

Context Sensitivity ◽

Grand Challenge ◽

Social Scientists ◽

The People ◽

Working Together ◽

Sensitivity Problem

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.

Download Full-text

Social Sciences: Achievements and Prospects Journal 6 (14), 2019/ RELF Group & OEAPS Inc.(Open European Academy of Public Sciences); Chief Editor Mark Freeman - Barcelona, Spain. 16.09.2019: OEAPS Inc., 2019. - 110 P.

10.31219/osf.io/98zg2 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Inc. OEAPS

Keyword(s):

Social Sciences ◽

Social Science ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Science Research ◽

Chief Editor ◽

Cross Cultural ◽

New Developments ◽

European Academy ◽

Doctor Of Philosophy ◽

Key Questions

Social Sciences: Achievements and Prospects is a major international forum for the analysis and debate of trends and approaches in social science research. The journal provides a space for innovative theoretical as well as empirical contributions to issues that transcend the framework of the traditional disciplines. Given its international orientation, contributions of a comparative or cross-cultural nature are particularly welcome. Social Sciences: Achievements and Prospects aims to contribute to overcoming fragmentation and over-specialization in current social-science research. Comprehensive and original contributions will tend to be of a tentative nature, trying out new avenues on terrains that are far from being well known. The journal welcomes trend reports on intellectually stimulating new developments to make them more widely known and to offer a space to assess their significance in answering key questions of scholarship in our time.Chief Editor Mark Freeman Doctor of Philosophy, Estonia.

Download Full-text

Environment and Health Research in China: The State of the Field

The China Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0305741013000337 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 214 ◽

pp. 255-282 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Jennifer Holdaway

Keyword(s):

Social Sciences ◽

Civil Society ◽

Social Science ◽

International Collaboration ◽

Health Research ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Science Research ◽

Environment And Health ◽

The Social ◽

Recent Developments

AbstractIn the context of this symposium, this article reviews social science research in the emerging field of environment and health in China, with a particular focus on the impacts of pollution. It begins with a discussion of the particular nature of China's environment-related health problems, distinguishing the different challenges presented by diseases of poverty, affluence and transition. It then reviews recent developments in policy and civil society with regard to environment and health, and the extent to which work in the social sciences has advanced our knowledge of these and of state–society interactions. The article concludes with some reflections on the need for and challenges of interdisciplinary and international collaboration in this area.

Download Full-text

Literature Review

Research Methods in the Social Sciences: An A-Z of key concepts ◽

10.1093/hepl/9780198850298.003.0038 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 158-162

Author(s):

Mathieu Ouimet ◽

Pierre-Olivier Bédard

Keyword(s):

Social Sciences ◽

Literature Review ◽

Social Science ◽

Research Question ◽

Relevant Literature ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Science Research ◽

The Social ◽

Academic Researchers ◽

Review Protocol

This chapter highlights literature review. Reviewing the published literature is one of the key activities of social science research, as a way to position one’s academic contribution, but also to get a bird’s eye view of what the relevant literature says on a given topic or research question. Many guides have been created to assist academic researchers and students in conducting a literature review, but there is no consensus on the most appropriate method to do so. One of the reasons for this lack of consensus is the plurality of epistemological attitudes that coexist in the social sciences. Before initiating a literature review, the researcher should start by clarifying the need for and the purpose of the review. Once this has been clarified, the actual review protocol, tools, and databases to be used will need to be determined to strike a balance between the scope of the study and the depth of the review.

Download Full-text