How to improve outbreak response: a case study of integrated outbreak analytics from Ebola in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo

The emerging field of outbreak analytics calls attention to the need for data from multiple sources to inform evidence-based decision making in managing infectious diseases outbreaks. To date, these approaches have not systematically integrated evidence from social and behavioural sciences. During the 2018–2020 Ebola outbreak in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, an innovative solution to systematic and timely generation of integrated and actionable social science evidence emerged in the form of the Cellulle d’Analyse en Sciences Sociales (Social Sciences Analytics Cell) (CASS), a social science analytical cell. CASS worked closely with data scientists and epidemiologists operating under the Epidemiological Cell to produce integrated outbreak analytics (IOA), where quantitative epidemiological analyses were complemented by behavioural field studies and social science analyses to help better explain and understand drivers and barriers to outbreak dynamics. The primary activity of the CASS was to conduct operational social science analyses that were useful to decision makers. This included ensuring that research questions were relevant, driven by epidemiological data from the field, that research could be conducted rapidly (ie, often within days), that findings were regularly and systematically presented to partners and that recommendations were co-developed with response actors. The implementation of the recommendations based on CASS analytics was also monitored over time, to measure their impact on response operations. This practice paper presents the CASS logic model, developed through a field-based externally led consultation, and documents key factors contributing to the usefulness and adaption of CASS and IOA to guide replication for future outbreaks.

The exclusion of prison informant evidence for unreliability in new Zealand

Prison informant or ‘jailhouse snitch’ evidence is a notoriously unreliable category of evidence. In light of reliability concerns, the New Zealand Supreme Court has adopted a progressive approach to the exclusion of prison informant evidence, centred on greater use of general exclusionary provisions as a threshold of reliability for the admission of suspect evidence. In so doing, the court has shifted the emphasis from deference to the jury as arbiter of ultimate reliability and towards more robust judicial gatekeeping as a safeguard against false testimony. This article critically analyses the New Zealand approach, including by way of comparison with Canada, Australia and England and Wales. The New Zealand approach is presented as a principled and important example of adapting fundamental evidentiary principles and provisions in line with emerging social science evidence. However, in light of the general concerns surrounding this class of evidence, ultimately further safeguards are still needed

Why Do Practitioners Want to Connect with Researchers? Evidence from a Field Experiment

ABSTRACTResearchers often want to increase the broader societal impact of their work. One way to do that is to discuss research findings directly with practitioners. Yet, such interactions are voluntary and do not regularly arise, which raises a key demand question: Under what conditions do practitioners want to connect with researchers? This article shows that relational considerations affect these decisions—that is, what practitioners expect the interaction will be like. I partnered with a US-based civic association to conduct a field experiment. I find that group leaders in this association are more likely to speak with researchers after learning that the researchers will (1) efficiently share information during the interaction, and (2) value practitioners’ knowledge. The results provide actionable guidance for how researchers should approach practitioners and also demonstrate one powerful way that social science evidence can inform efforts to bridge research and practice.

Why are academics of science more productive than those of social science? Evidence from Indonesia

PurposeThis paper aims to examine factors influencing the productivity in research and publication between science and social science.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative approach with interviews for 40 academics in four public universities in Indonesia was applied to get an in-depth understanding of the issues.FindingsThe results of this study demonstrated that individual factors instead of institutional factors that contributed to the productivity of academics in science as compared to academics in social science.Originality/valueDespite there were influential effects of institutions in which the socializing process of internalizing the values, norms and scientific roles under the auspice of qualified supervisors or advisors, there seemed to be an individual capacity that comes in between. The implications of this study are discussed in the article.

Canadian International Relations, American social science? Evidence from academic journals and comprehensive reading lists

The last two decades have witnessed growing attention to the “Canadianization” of the field of International Relations. In this article, we forward a novel approach to testing the influence of domestic factors in Canadian International Relations. By analyzing the reading lists of comprehensive examinations from Canadian doctoral programs in International Relations, we can understand the ways in which Canadian institutions’ reading lists construct the hierarchy of the field’s journals. Among these journals, those based in the United States are most frequently assigned, with others hosted in the UK and around Europe. Canadian journals are rarely assigned to reading lists. French-language journals are also rarely assigned to reading lists, even in francophone institutions, and when they are, the journals are much more likely to be hosted in France than in Canada. We offer a series of guiding questions for future consideration of the “Canadianization” of International Relations education in Canada.

School District Boundaries: Consequences and Challenges

This chapter focuses on district boundary lines, social science evidence, and litigation to consider how they shape student enrollment and segregation. Social science clearly shows that district boundaries continue to hamper school integration by race and income, perhaps more so now than in the past. When it comes to the courts, some decisions have recognized the damaging impact of school-related boundaries when it comes to school desegregation. Others have not. Over the past few decades, the ambiguity of the law has helped create differing boundary line arrangements across the country. The chapter reviews three different areas to understand the legal and political significance of boundaries. St. Louis, Missouri, shows us that interdistrict desegregation plans where district boundaries remain intact face uphill battles, with implications for state court cases in the highly fragmented Northeast. In Alabama, recent federal law suggests that the courts may be returning to their earlier understanding of how district boundaries work. In Tennessee, though, federal courts permitted a damaging proliferation of boundary lines. These cases illustrate what social science tells us about district boundaries—that they give shape to segregation. They show that boundary lines are not immutable and that the way they shift matters a great deal in shaping access to opportunity for students, particularly for black, Latino, and low-income students. Ultimately, the chapter argues that a renewed judicial and political understanding of the segregating impact of district boundaries is imperative and offer recommendations for how to mitigate their impact.

Shaping Educational Policy Through the Courts: The Use of Social Science Research in Amicus Briefs in Fisher I

Different from more traditional policy-making avenues, the courts provide an antipolitical arena that does not require broad agreement from various constituents for policy enactment. Seeking to guide court decisions on these policy issues, individuals and organizations have filed amicus briefs that increasingly include social science to support their arguments. The Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Supreme Court case presents an ideal example to study the use of social science evidence in amicus briefs to shape educational policy. Findings from this study identify differences in the use of social science research that suggest many ways in which our current understanding of the efforts of actors to shape educational policy via the highest court in the nation is incomplete. This study also highlights why developing this understanding could be extremely useful to both the creation of educational policy and the use of antipolitical approaches to change such policy.