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

Second Annual Conference of the “ASEAN Muslim Social Scientists’ Forum”

1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-306
Author(s):  
Hussain Mutalib
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Southeast Asian ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Asian Region ◽  
Select Group ◽  
Islamic Resurgence ◽  
Closed Door

The Muslim Social Science Scholars’ Forum of ASEAN (Associationof Southeast Asian Nations) held its Second Meeting in Bangkok, Thailandfrom Mubrram 20-23, 1409lSeptember 1-4, 1988, under the auspices of theFoundation for Democracy and Development Studies. The theme for themeeting was “Muslim Scholars and Social Science Research,” aimed atdocumenting, discussing and analyzing the types of scholarship or researchthat have been done about Muslims in the Southeast Asian region, particularlywithin the ASEAN countries.A select group of Muslim social science scholars (together with someMuslim politicians) from the countries within ASEAN, except Brunei, wereinvited to the “Forum.” They included: Drs. Dawan Raharjo and NurcholisMajid, and Professor Moeslim (Indonesia), Drs. Surin Pitsuwan, SeneeMadmarn and Chaiwat (Thailand), Drs. Yusof Talib and Hussain Mutalib(Singapore), Professors Taib Osman and Wan Hashim and Umar Farouq(Malaysia), and Drs. Carmen Abubakar, Madale and Mastura (Philippines).All participants were either presenters of papers or discussants.Throughout the four-day deliberations, participants discussed the typesof studies and research that have been the focus of scholars studying Muslimcommunities in the ASEAN region. Some titles of papers included: “MuslimStudies in the Phillipines;” “Social Science Research in Thailand;” and “SocialScience Research in Malaysia: the Case of Islamic Resurgence.”Given the “closed-door” ‘nature of the meeting (participation was byinvitation only), there was adequate time for a more intensive, frank andthorough discussions of the papers. Problems and issues were aired and posed,and alternative options offered by participants. For every paper, there wasa discussant; hence, the issues that came out of the papers managed to beseen, discussed and appreciated from a more complete and balancedperspective.By and large, the Bangkok meeting was a successful one. Theapproximately twenty participants were generally pleased with the high qualityof papers presented and the sense of brotherhood that prevailed. The warmhospitality of the hosts from Thailand was also appreciated ...

Politics and Research: Epistemological Moments

1990 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 149-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adelaide H. Villmoare
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Law And Society ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

In reading the essays by David M. Trubek and John Esser and Boaventura de Sousa Santos, I thought about what I call epistemological moments that have provided contexts within which to understand the relationship between social science research and politics. I will sketch four moments and suggest that I find one of them more compelling than the others because it speaks particularly to social scientists with critical, democratic ambitions and to Trubek and Esser's concerns about politics and the intellectual vitality of the law and society movement.

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

2018 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals The introduction of research ethics review procedures at a university in South Africa: review outcomes of a social science research ethics committee

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Simeon EH Davies
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
South African ◽  
Ethics Education ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Research Ethics Committee ◽  
Education Training

The research ethics committee (REC) is a key element of university administration and has gained increasing importance as a review mechanism for those institutions that wish to conduct responsible research, along with safeguarding research ethics standards, scientific merit and human rights of participants. Given the critical role of the university REC, it is argued that there is a need to assesses and understand the work of RECs to identify areas for improvement and thus focus on capacity building to respond to the escalating volume, type and complexity of research. This paper reports on the research ethics outcomes of a social science REC in a Business Faculty at a South African university during its seminal period of operation (2010–2015). Content methodology and a standardised questionnaire were used to assess the REC. The results show the increasing workload of the REC with favourable scores for submission/review processes and minute-taking. However, lower scores were seen for ethics education/training and tracking previously approved research. These shortcomings appear to be related to inadequate funding and resource support for research ethics education/training and administrative structures. Factors contributing to proposal rejections included weak research questions or hypotheses, poor questionnaires/interview schedule design and inadequate research ethics consideration in the proposal. It is argued that the complexity and escalation of research submissions to South African RECs necessitates that they are appropriately developed and capacitated to enhance their utility and thereby support the research mandate of universities.

Conference on Social Science Research in Liberia

1970 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-138
Author(s):  
L. P. Hartzler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
West African ◽  
Turn Of The Century ◽  
African Studies ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The West

This two-day conference, sponsored by Stanford's Committee on African Studies, was possibly the first gathering of its kind outside Liberia since the American Colonisation Society ceased sending emigrants to the West African Republic at the turn of the century. It was organised by Dr Martin Lowenkopf, and was attended by over 40 social scientists, including six Liberians at present studying in the United States.

Three Questions for Historians of Science in the Modern Middle East and North Africa

2015 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 588-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cyrus Schayegh
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
Social Science ◽  
North Africa ◽  
Rockefeller Foundation ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Subsequent Work ◽  
Societal Relevance

What was science, who was involved in it, and where did it unfold in the modern Middle East and North Africa? These are the three questions raised in this piece. The following notes echo my past research on the growth and societal relevance of biomedical sciences in Iran, and are also informed by a new interest in social sciences and, more particularly, in the establishment in 1927 of the Social Science Research Section at the American University of Beirut (AUB; called Syrian Protestant College until 1920) and its subsequent work. A handful of social scientists led by the American Stuart Dodd and financed by the US Rockefeller Foundation, which was active worldwide, helped turn AUB into a hub not only of education, but more than before, of research too. Covering wide swathes of the “Near East,” these social scientists framed that region as an extraordinary “laboratory” for social science research.

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?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document