scholarly journals Publishing in the social sciences and its representation in research evaluation and funding systems

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Sivertsen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Organizational Evaluation ◽  
Public Media ◽  
The Social

The paper describes the full range of publishing and its purposes in the social sciences – from scholarly publishing via professional communication to societal interaction in public media – and how it is represented in five different contexts for research evaluation and funding. The five contexts are: applications for external project funding, applications for positions or promotions, indicator-based institutional funding systems, summative organizational evaluation systems, and formative organizational evaluation systems. The chapter provides a critical discussion of how publications from the social sciences may be filtered out or placed in predetermined hierarchies in these evaluation and funding contexts, and also of how the evaluation and funding procedures can be improved to appropriately represent social science research and publishing.

scholarly journals Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Bennett ◽  
Robin Roth ◽  
Sarah C. Klain ◽  
Kai M. A. Chan ◽  
Douglas A. Clark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Conservation Policy ◽  
Conservation Science ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Social

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy‐influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.

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 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.

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.

Literature Review

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.

Bridging the gap between the social science and the social ontology of collective memory

2019 ◽  
pp. 175069801987608
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Blustein
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Collective Memory ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Social Ontology ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Margaret Gilbert ◽  
Social Media Site ◽  
The Social ◽  
Collective Remembering

It is commonplace to attribute memories to groups of individuals both large and small. Attributions of memories to groups are also found in social science research. This article proposes using philosophical accounts from the literature on social ontology to help clarify and deepen our understanding of how these terms are being employed in the social sciences. Two contrasting accounts of collective remembering are presented: the joint commitment account derived from the seminal work of Margaret Gilbert, and the participatory intentions account based on Christopher Kutz’s analysis of collective action. The implications of these accounts for clarifying notions of collective memory and remembering in the social sciences are explored through two case studies—one involving a social media site that promotes sharing of memories among users and the other concerning organizational remembering.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document