scholarly journals Does increased interdisciplinary contact among hard and social scientists help or hinder interdisciplinary research?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karolina Urbanska ◽  
Sylvie Huet ◽  
Serge Guimond
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Ingroup Bias ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
High Status ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Global Issues ◽  
Interdisciplinary Collaborations ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Science Disciplines

Scientists across disciplines must often work together to address pressing global issues facing our societies. For interdisciplinary projects to flourish, scientists must recognise the potential contribution of other disciplines in answering key research questions. Recent research suggested that social sciences may be appreciated less than hard sciences overall. Building on the extensive evidence of ingroup bias and ethnocentrism in intergroup relations, however, one could also expect scientists, especially those belonging to high status disciplines, to play down the contributions of other disciplines to important research questions. The focus of the present research was to investigate how hard and social scientists perceive one another and the impact of interdisciplinary collaborations on these perceptions. We surveyed 280 scientists at Wave 1 and with 129 of them followed up at Wave 2 to establish how ongoing interdisciplinary collaborations underpinned perceptions of other disciplines. Based on Wave 1 data, scientists who report having interdisciplinary experiences more frequently are also more likely to recognise the intellectual contribution of other disciplines and perceive more commonalities with them. However, in line with the intergroup bias literature, group membership in the more prestigious hard sciences is related to a stronger tendency to downplay the intellectual contribution of social science disciplines compared to other hard science disciplines. This bias was not present among social scientists who produced very similar evaluation of contribution of hard and social science disciplines. Finally, using both waves of the survey, the social network comparison of discipline pairs shows that asymmetries in the evaluation of other disciplines are only present among discipline pairs that do not have any experience of collaborating with one another. These results point to the need for policies that incentivise new collaborations between hard and social scientists and foster interdisciplinary contact. Data and supplementary materials [DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YNERZ].

Imperatives for Theories in Social Science: The North-South Divide Notwithstanding

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-217
Author(s):  
Aaron Ola Ogundiwin, ◽  
Joel N. Nwachukwu
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Conceptual Analysis ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Science Data ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The North ◽  
Common Mistake ◽  
History Of ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Social Science Data

Abstract The paper underscores the place of theories in organizing social science data and experience. It holds that theories are indispensable to social research (The North-South divide notwithstanding), in view of the fact that the framework of knowledge and experience within which theories are established make a meaningful explanation of the world phenomenon reasonably possible. It delineates political philosophy and history of ideas from theory and thus, takes care of common mistake social scientists make differentiating between them. Furthermore, the paper on one hand, takes on the scientific requisites of theory such as assumption, concepts (and their functions), hypothesis (and its characteristics typology), law, models, paradigm and provides lucid conceptual analysis of each with a view to showing their relatedness to theory but not as synonyms to it. On the other hand, we singled out dependency theory in its emanation from knowledge and experience of underdevelopment of Third World countries, as the first and perhaps most relevant theoretic explanation of Africa’s underdevelopment. The paper posits that a good theory that will serve as a rudder for formulation of research questions, problem statement, as well as sustain the data analysis, and findings must parade some, if not all of the following qualities: precision and testability, empirical validity, parsimony, stimulation, and practicability.

Contextual Factors Influencing Information Seeking Behavior of Social Scientists

2014 ◽  
pp. 190-210
Author(s):  
Mohammed Nasser Al-Suqri
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Information Seeking ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Information Seeking Behavior ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Publication Patterns ◽  
Seeking Behavior ◽  
Types Of Information ◽  
Information Seeking Behaviors ◽  
The Impact

Many researchers in the area of information seeking behavior have highlighted the importance of context in influencing information-seeking behavior. However, few have elaborated on how contextual factors influence information-seeking in practice. This chapter explores the impact of disciplinary traditions of non-western, developing country external environments on patterns of information seeking and retrieval. Conditions that influence information seeking behaviors of social science scholars in non-western, developing countries impact research traditions, publication patterns, and subsequent formats are examined. This chapter draws on existing literature to examine the impact of contextual factors on information seeking by social science scholars as well as, on relevant findings based on research with other categories of researchers. The chapter concludes that there is substantial evidence from previous research to indicate the importance of contextual factors in influencing the information-seeking behavior of social scientists. Some of these factors are related to the nature of social science as a domain of study, while others are related to researcher’s external environment, including constraints on the availability of particular types of information.

Comparative Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 47-51
Author(s):  
Céline C. Cocq ◽  
Ora Szekely
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Small Group ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Laboratory Conditions ◽  
Case Comparison ◽  
Independent Variable ◽  
The Impact

This chapter illustrates comparative analysis, which is simply defined as comparing and contrasting two or more phenomena in order to better understand them. Comparative analysis plays an important role in both academic and policy-related circles and can be useful in many different ways. While in the hard sciences it is possible to conduct experiments under controlled laboratory conditions, this is often impossible in social science. Social scientists must therefore find other ways of isolating and testing the impact of variables and understanding the relationships between them. Accordingly, the goal of comparative analysis is the comparison of phenomena — whether that means comparison within individual cases, among a small group of cases, or the analysis of large amounts of data — to identify key independent variable(s) and establish what link, if any, exists between them and the dependent variable(s). Comparative analysis can also be useful in establishing the nature of that relationship, assessing whether it is necessary, sufficient, or both. Moreover, cross-case comparison allows social scientists to build broad theories that are applicable in different contexts.

scholarly journals Applied Social Science? Academic Contributions to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and Their Consequences

2010 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
KARIM MURJI
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
Racial Violence ◽  
Institutional Racism ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Applied Social Science ◽  
The Impact

AbstractA decade on from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, this article examines the contributions of social scientists to the Inquiry on two key issues: the meaning of institutional racism and the police response to racial violence. These academic inputs are characterised as instrumental and reflexive forms of knowledge. While social science applied to social policy is most effective in instrumental mode, rather than reflexively, there are various factors – such as the interpretation of evidence, media debate and the role of prominent individuals – that are more significant in assessing its consequences. The impact of these factors mean that, although academic work on these issues has been influential, the outcome appears to be that institutional racism has run its course and been disowned or downgraded, while racial violence has become subsumed within the broader category of hate crime. It is argued that the relationship between academic knowledge and policy requires a better grasp of the complexities of applying social science, and that is what this article aims to make a contribution to.

WOMEN‘S STUDIES IN SOCIOLOGY: A PERFUMED GHETTO?

1981 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-8
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Women's Studies ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Women’S Studies ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

One of the fields of sociology which is experiencing a dramatic explosion is that catch‐all area of Women's Studies. Books and articles touching on women's experiences in the labour market or in the home, the education of girls or images of femininity, the impact of the law on women or sexism in the social sciences have been proliferating in the last decade. Much of the impetus has been provided by the renascent Women's Movement, and the various academic concerns echo the diverse attacks on the status quo being made by politically active women. The one thing which holds all this material together is an explicit concern to bring women to the centre of the stage in the social sciences, instead of leaving them (as they so often have been) in the wings or with mere walk‐on parts. Taking the woman's point of view is seen as a legitimate corrective to the tendency to ignore women altogether. But is this sufficient to constitute the nucleus of a new speciality within sociology, which is what seems to be happening to ‘Women's Studies’ and ‘feminist’ social science? More seriously, should sociological discussions of women be ghettoised into special courses on women in society? As a preliminary attempt to redress the balance maybe such separate development can be justified, but if that is all that happens, the enriching potential of feminist social science may well be lost to mainstream sociology. It is not just that feminist social scientists want women to be brought in to complete the picture. It is not just that they claim that half the picture is being left unexposed. The claims are often much more ambitious than that: what much feminist writing is attempting is a demonstration of the distortion in the half image which is exposed. An injection of feminist thinking into practically any sociological speciality could lead to a profound re‐orientation of that field. More than this, a feminist approach can indicate the ways in which traditional boundaries between sociological specialities can obscure women and their special position in society. Feminist social scientists throw down the gauntlet on the way in which the field of sociology has traditionally been carved up. But if women's studies are kept in their ghetto, this challenge will be lost: to me, the explicitly critical stance which feminist research takes with respect to mainstream sociology is one of its most exciting qualities, and such research has important insights to contribute to the development of the discipline.

scholarly journals Research Impact Through Matchmaking (RITM): Why and How to Connect Researchers and Practitioners

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Seth Levine
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Organizational Diversity ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Impact ◽  
New Evidence

ABSTRACTResearchers and practitioners increasingly want to learn from one another and work together to solve problems. This article presents results from a new evidence-based approach for connecting them, called Research Impact Through Matchmaking (RITM). This method leverages research on organizational diversity to initiate new relationships between diverse people. The article describes the method and presents data from 37 new connections between practitioners working at nonprofits and social scientists. To my knowledge, this is the first dataset describing reasons why a large variety of nonprofit practitioners value social science research. I also document the impact of these matches. Overall, this article provides actionable guidance for those who want to initiate their own new connections (i.e., match themselves) and/or to broker new connections between others.

scholarly journals Integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response: A strategic framework to strengthen capacities and improve Global Health security

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Louis Bardosh ◽  
Daniel H. de Vries ◽  
Sharon Abramowitz ◽  
Adama Thorlie ◽  
Lianne Cremers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Capacity Building ◽  
Core Competencies ◽  
Institutional Development ◽  
Science Data ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Strategic Framework ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The importance of integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response has become a common feature of infectious disease policy and practice debates. However to date, this integration remains inadequate, fragmented and under-funded, with limited reach and small initial investments. Based on data collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, in this paper we analysed the variety of knowledge, infrastructure and funding gaps that hinder the full integration of the social sciences in epidemics and present a strategic framework for addressing them. Methods Senior social scientists with expertise in public health emergencies facilitated expert deliberations, and conducted 75 key informant interviews, a consultation with 20 expert social scientists from Africa, Asia and Europe, 2 focus groups and a literature review of 128 identified high-priority peer reviewed articles. We also analysed 56 interviews from the Ebola 100 project, collected just after the West African Ebola epidemic. Analysis was conducted on gaps and recommendations. These were inductively classified according to various themes during two group prioritization exercises. The project was conducted between February and May 2019. Findings from the report were used to inform strategic prioritization of global investments in social science capacities for health emergencies. Findings Our analysis consolidated 12 knowledge and infrastructure gaps and 38 recommendations from an initial list of 600 gaps and 220 recommendations. In developing our framework, we clustered these into three areas: 1) Recommendations to improve core social science response capacities, including investments in: human resources within response agencies; the creation of social science data analysis capacities at field and global level; mechanisms for operationalizing knowledge; and a set of rapid deployment infrastructures; 2) Recommendations to strengthen applied and basic social sciences, including the need to: better define the social science agenda and core competencies; support innovative interdisciplinary science; make concerted investments in developing field ready tools and building the evidence-base; and develop codes of conduct; and 3) Recommendations for a supportive social science ecosystem, including: the essential foundational investments in institutional development; training and capacity building; awareness-raising activities with allied disciplines; and lastly, support for a community of practice. Interpretation Comprehensively integrating social science into the epidemic preparedness and response architecture demands multifaceted investments on par with allied disciplines, such as epidemiology and virology. Building core capacities and competencies should occur at multiple levels, grounded in country-led capacity building. Social science should not be a parallel system, nor should it be “siloed” into risk communication and community engagement. Rather, it should be integrated across existing systems and networks, and deploy interdisciplinary knowledge “transversally” across all preparedness and response sectors and pillars. Future work should update this framework to account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the institutional landscape.

scholarly journals Global Pandemics Corona Virus (COVID-19) Pandemonium Disruption Educational Sector Blues and Global Issues Arising Therefrom

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Kwesi Atta Sakyi ◽  
Dr. Geoffrey Mweshi ◽  
David Musona
Keyword(s):  
Multidisciplinary Approach ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Global Issues ◽  
The Past ◽  
Corona Virus ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Impact

In this paper, we survey the topic of pandemics with specific reference to the Global Corona Virus pandemic which is dubbed COVID-19, and we trace the background of pandemics in the past. Our objective in this paper is to share our experiences as well as to examine the impact of the pandemic on businesses, especially the educational sector, and also on other sectors. In this paper, we take a multidisciplinary approach as well as a compendious approach of surveying a broad swathe of issues. At the same time, we use a narrative approach, providing commentaries and descriptive analysis, and a flashback of history in the literature review. We rely mainly on secondary data for the discussion and analysis as the nature of the topic is still fresh and delicate for us to conduct primary research. Besides, we believe that the problem at hand is on-going, all encompassing, and it may be premature at this stage for us to come to some definitive conclusions. The theoretical model which we use in the analysis is the macro-environmental model which is popularly and variously called the PEST, PESTLE, PESTEL, SLEPT, or STEEPLE model, popular in management studies and used by Social Scientists in their exegesis and discourses.

Value judgments in social science

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom L. Beauchamp
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Scientist ◽  
Social Conditions ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Value Judgments ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Political Values ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Impact

Leading theorists in the social sciences have insisted that value judgments should be strictly separated from scientific judgments, which should be value-free. Yet these same thinkers recognize that social scientists are often committed to values in carrying out their work and may be motivated by moral goals of removing or remedying social conditions. From this perspective, scientific conclusions (one sort of fact) and moral commitments (one sort of value) are intertwined in scientific practices, and the question arises whether a social scientist qua scientist makes value judgments or only makes such judgments in a nonscientific capacity. Related questions concern the role played by moral, social, and political values in the pursuit of scientific knowledge and the impact of these values on scientific theories and methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document