scholarly journals Considering COVID-19 through the Lens of Hazard and Disaster Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 248
Author(s):  
Liesel Ritchie ◽  
Duane Gill
Keyword(s):  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Social Dimensions ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
Response Recovery ◽  
The Social ◽  
Community Impacts

Decades of social science research have taught us much about how individuals, groups, and communities respond to disasters. The findings of this research have helped inform emergency management practices, including disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, most of us—researchers or not—have attempted or are attempting to make sense of what is going on around us. In this article, we assert that we need not examine the pandemic in a vacuum; rather, we can draw upon scholarly and practical sources to inform our thinking about this 21st century catastrophe. The pandemic has provided an “unfortunate opportunity” to revisit what we know about disaster phenomena, including catastrophes, and to reconsider the findings of research from over the years. Drawing upon academic research, media sources, and our own observations, we focus on the U.S. and employ disaster characteristics framework of (1) etiology or origins; (2) physical damage characteristics; (3) disaster phases or cycles; (4) vulnerability; (5) community impacts; and (6) individual impacts to examine perspectives about the ways in which the ongoing pandemic is both similar and dissimilar to conceptualizations about the social dimensions of hazards and disasters. We find that the COVID-19 pandemic is not merely a disaster; rather, it is a catastrophe.

scholarly journals Authority and Authors and Codes

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Madison
Keyword(s):  
Computer Network ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Computer Code ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Social Dimensions ◽  
Normative Claim ◽  
The Social ◽  
Authorized Access

Contests over the meaning and application of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) expose long-standing, complex questions about the sources and impacts of the concept of authority in law and culture. Accessing a computer network “without authorization” and by “exceeding authorized access” is forbidden by the CFAA. Courts are divided in their interpretation of this language in the statute. This Article first proposes to address the issue with an insight from social science research. Neither criminal nor civil liability under the CFAA should attach unless the alleged violator has transgressed some border or boundary that is rendered visible or “imageable” in the language of the research on which the argument draws. That claim leads to a second, broader point — emphasizing the potential “imageability” of computer networks, including the Internet, has implications that go beyond one statute because of what that emphasis may teach those who create and implement those networks and who shape the authority that relevant computer code exercises. “Authority” and “authorization” are social practices, continuing negotiations between those who produce them and those who acknowledge and recognize them. “Imageability” is a way of translating that observation into a normative claim in a specific statutory context. Recognizing the social dimensions of “authority” implicates both what kind of Internet society wants and what kind of Internet society will get.

scholarly journals Hazards, Climates and Cultures: Reflections on Recent Scholarship and Proposals for Further Research

2016 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 1602002
Author(s):  
James M. Jeffers
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Hurricane Katrina ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Complex Dynamic ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
The Social

Writing in 2006 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, James K. Mitchell challenged social science researchers of hazards and disasters to broaden their research agenda. He advocated a move beyond simply applying existing social science insights to contemporary events to reflection on the larger project of the production of knowledge through academic research, the application of that knowledge to public policy, and the role of the social sciences in these endeavors. In particular, he urged consideration of the context-dependent nature of scientific knowledge on hazards, the relationships between scientific and non-scientific ways of understanding and responding to disasters, and the complex and often contradictory ways in which hazards can be framed, interpreted and understood. Ten years on from this challenge, this paper reviews scholarship that has addressed some of these concerns and proposes questions for further research. It argues that while social science research has advanced in some of the directions proposed by Mitchell, the challenge of complex, dynamic and contradictory interpretations of hazards and the implications of the provisional nature of knowledge remain understudied. It also suggests that while recent innovations in the co-production of hazards knowledge are welcome, there may be significant challenges to utilizing these approaches on a wider basis.

scholarly journals Labeling or science-by-buzzwords: The semantic trap in academic research and how to get out of it

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Solberg Söilen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Smart Cities ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Internal Marketing ◽  
Research System ◽  
Research Gaps ◽  
The Social

The social sciences are drowning in new fancy academic terms or buzzwords, labels with unprecise definitions, rebranding phenomenon that somehow seem familiar. We are all surrounded by smart cities, innovation, and sustainability. What do these terms mean that we could not express earlier? Introducingthem also raises new questions, which at first may seem provocative: Are there dumb cities too, if sowhere? Do we carry out research at our universities that is not innovative? Does the literature onsustainability make our products more sustainable? Above all, these new fields are formulated in almostsuspiciously positive terms attracting the attention of our politicians and echoed everywhere. How cananyone be against smart cities, innovation and sustainability? It must be good, important and thereforeit deserves funding. To become more relevant academic research must redirect its focus from buzzwords to problems, notjust smart “research gaps” in the literature. Instead of listing keywords, researchers, academic journalsand academic databases should list problems (1), and the problems should be stated in full sentences (2)using as few (3) and as simple words as possible (4). We should also insist on clear, mutually exclusivedefinitions. By searching for problems instead of labels it will become much easier to find relevantresearch across different labels and disciplines.We need to be much stricter when admitting new labels. If a new term is not exact and not muchdifferent from a previous term it should be declined. Focus should be on what the Germans since the 19thcentury understand by “verstehen”, as the "interpretive or participatory" examination of socialphenomena, not on coining new terms. Today new terms often come to life because we did not readenough, or we thought more about internal marketing and our own self-promotion instead of focusing onproblems that are important for humanity. We are all guilty of this to a certain degree as it’s difficult toescape the logic trap that is our current social science research system.

scholarly journals Video Games as a Multifaceted Medium: A Review of Quantitative Social Science Research on Video Games and a Typology of Video Game Research Approaches

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 31-68
Author(s):  
James D. Ivory
Keyword(s):  
Video Games ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Video Game ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Social Dimensions ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Topic Area ◽  
The Social

Although there is a vast and useful body of quantitative social science research dealing with the social role and impact of video games, it is difficult to compare studies dealing with various dimensions of video games because they are informed by different perspectives and assumptions, employ different methodologies, and address different problems. Studies focusing on different social dimensions of video games can produce varied findings about games’ social function that are often difficult to reconcile— or even contradictory. Research is also often categorized by topic area, rendering a comprehensive view of video games’ social role across topic areas difficult. This interpretive review presents a novel typology of four identified approaches that categorize much of the quantitative social science video game research conducted to date: “video games as stimulus,” “video games as avocation,” “video games as skill,” and “video games as social environment.” This typology is useful because it provides an organizational structure within which the large and growing number of studies on video games can be categorized, guiding comparisons between studies on different research topics and aiding a more comprehensive understanding of video games’ social role. Categorizing the different approaches to video game research provides a useful heuristic for those critiquing and expanding that research, as well as an understandable entry point for scholars new to video game research. Further, and perhaps more importantly, the typology indicates when topics should be explored using different approaches than usual to shed new light on the topic areas. Lastly, the typology exposes the conceptual disconnects between the different approaches to video game research, allowing researchers to consider new ways to bridge gaps between the different approaches’ strengths and limitations with novel methods.

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.

Designing and Evaluating Survey Instruments for Research in Human Issues in Horticulture

HortScience ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 554c-554
Author(s):  
Sonja M. Skelly ◽  
Jennifer Campbell Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Survey Research ◽  
Survey Methodology ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Survey Instrument ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
The Social ◽  
Survey Instruments

Survey research has a long precedence of use in the social sciences. With a growing interest in the area of social science research in horticulture, survey methodology needs to be explored. In order to conduct proper and accurate survey research, a valid and reliable instrument must be used. In many cases, however, an existing measurement tool that is designed for specific research variables is unavailable thus, an understanding of how to design and evaluate a survey instrument is necessary. Currently, there are no guidelines in horticulture research for developing survey instruments for use with human subjects. This presents a problem when attempting to compare and reference similar research. This workshop will explore the methodology involved in preparing a survey instrument; topics covered will include defining objectives for the survey, constructing questions, pilot testing the survey, and obtaining reliability and validity information. In addition to these topics some examples will be provided which will illustrate how to complete these steps. At the conclusion of this session a discussion will be initiated for others to share information and experiences dealing with creating survey instruments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document