scholarly journals The Struggle is Real: Challenges and Solutions in Theory Building

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew R. A. Conway ◽  
Kristof Kovacs ◽  
Han Hao ◽  
Sara Anne Goring ◽  
Christopher J. Schmank
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Latent Variables ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Theory Building ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Psychological Constructs ◽  
Weak Theories ◽  
Applied Social Sciences

Strong theories are sorely lacking in the applied social sciences, especially in psychology. Elko Fried identifies fundamental problems that are common in social science research and explains how these problems manifest themselves in the literature, impede scientific progress, and contribute to the lack of theory building. He covers a lot of ground: weak theories, the conflation of theoretical and statistical models, problematic inferences, equating latent variables with psychological constructs, and more. As intelligence researchers, we are all too familiar with these kinds of problems; they have been sources of confusion and barriers to progress for over a century. A decade ago, the continued lack of concern over these issues in the field of intelligence became our major concern, and our motivation to develop a new approach. Suffice to say, Elko Fried is music to our ears.

A Tale of Two Cultures

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Goertz ◽  
James Mahoney
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Measurement Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Quantitative Research Methods ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
The Social ◽  
Scientific Worldview ◽  
Different Cultures

Some in the social sciences argue that the same logic applies to both qualitative and quantitative research methods. This book demonstrates that these two paradigms constitute different cultures, each internally coherent yet marked by contrasting norms, practices, and toolkits. The book identifies and discusses major differences between these two traditions that touch nearly every aspect of social science research, including design, goals, causal effects and models, concepts and measurement, data analysis, and case selection. Although focused on the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, the book also seeks to promote toleration, exchange, and learning by enabling scholars to think beyond their own culture and see an alternative scientific worldview. The book is written in an easily accessible style and features a host of real-world examples to illustrate methodological points.

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.

scholarly journals Reporting ethical approval in health and social science articles: an audit of adherence to GDPR and national legislation

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Asplund ◽  
Kerstin Hulter Åsberg
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Ethical Approval

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.

Statistical and measurement pitfalls in the use of meta-regression in meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 469-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank L. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Organizational Behavior ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Marketing Social ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Almost All

Purpose Meta-regression is widely used and misused today in meta-analyses in psychology, organizational behavior, marketing, management, and other social sciences, as an approach to the identification and calibration of moderators, with most users being unaware of serious problems in its use. The purpose of this paper is to describe nine serious methodological problems that plague applications of meta-regression. Design/methodology/approach This paper is methodological in nature and is based on well-established principles of measurement and statistics. These principles are used to illuminate the potential pitfalls in typical applications of meta-regression. Findings The analysis in this paper demonstrates that many of the nine statistical and measurement pitfalls in the use of meta-regression are nearly universal in applications in the literature, leading to the conclusion that few meta-regressions in the literature today are trustworthy. A second conclusion is that in almost all cases, hierarchical subgrouping of studies is superior to meta-regression as a method of identifying and calibrating moderators. Finally, a third conclusion is that, contrary to popular belief among researchers, the process of accurately identifying and calibrating moderators, even with the best available methods, is complex, difficult, and data demanding. Practical implications This paper provides useful guidance to meta-analytic researchers that will improve the practice of moderator identification and calibration in social science research literatures. Social implications Today, many important decisions are made on the basis of the results of meta-analyses. These include decisions in medicine, pharmacology, applied psychology, management, marketing, social policy, and other social sciences. The guidance provided in this paper will improve the quality of such decisions by improving the accuracy and trustworthiness of meta-analytic results. Originality/value This paper is original and valuable in that there is no similar listing and discussion of the pitfalls in the use of meta-regression in the literature, and there is currently a widespread lack of knowledge of these problems among meta-analytic researchers in all disciplines.

scholarly journals 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.

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.

scholarly journals Realizing the transformative potential of conservation through the social sciences, arts and humanities

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Bennett ◽  
Robin Roth
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Conservation Practices ◽  
Arts And Humanities ◽  
Transformative Potential ◽  
The Arts ◽  
The Social ◽  
Conservation Actions

Conservation actions most often occur in peopled seascapes and landscapes. As a result, conservation decisions cannot rely solely on evidence from the natural sciences, but must also be guided by the social sciences, the arts and the humanities. However, we are concerned that too much of the current attention is on research that serves an instrumental purpose, by which we mean that the social sciences are used to justify and promote status quo conservation practices. The reasons for engaging the social sciences, as well as the arts and the humanities, go well beyond making conservation more effective. In this editorial, we briefly reflect on how expanding the types of social science research and the contributions of the arts and the humanities can help to achieve the transformative potential of conservation.

scholarly journals Big data and Belmont: On the ethics and research implications of consumer-based datasets

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 205395172110481
Author(s):  
Remy Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Big Data ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Research Participant ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Marketing Risk ◽  
Brokerage Firms

Consumer-based datasets are the products of data brokerage firms that agglomerate millions of personal records on the adult US population. This big data commodity is purchased by both companies and individual clients for purposes such as marketing, risk prevention, and identity searches. The sheer magnitude and population coverage of available consumer-based datasets and the opacity of the business practices that create these datasets pose emergent ethical challenges within the computational social sciences that have begun to incorporate consumer-based datasets into empirical research. To directly engage with the core ethical debates around the use of consumer-based datasets within social science research, I first consider two case study applications of consumer-based dataset-based scholarship. I then focus on three primary ethical dilemmas within consumer-based datasets regarding human subject research, participant privacy, and informed consent in conversation with the principles of the seminal Belmont Report.

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

2013 ◽  
Vol 214 ◽  
pp. 255-282 ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document