Cutting NSF Is Like Liquidating Your Finest Investment
Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using […]
Having read Kim Stanley Robinson’s “Ministry for the Future” and reflected on it in the context of the managerial literature around the climate crisis, we set out to imagine a middle ground between utopia and dystopia; an optimum scenario which can still leave us with a livable future.
Trained as a social psychologist, Leiden University social psychologist Carsten de Dreu uses behavioral science, history, economics, archaeology, primatology and biology, among other disciplines to study the basis of conflict and cooperation among humans.
Reviewers and editors sometimes reject papers on the grounds of Common Method Bias, but is CMB as common (or as monstrous) as previously believed?
The latest update of the global Academic Freedom Index finds improvements in only five countries
To celebrate the Social Science Research Council’s 100th anniversary, we’re highlighting three scholars honored with SSRC fellowships and awards.
Janet Salmons, the research community director of our sister site, Sage Methodspace, coordinated a series of research roundtables to discuss the obstacles facing academic freedom and how to navigate them.
The claim that academics hype their research is not news. The use of subjective or emotive words that glamorize, publicize, embellish or exaggerate results and promote the merits of studies has been noted for some time and has drawn criticism from researchers themselves. Some argue hyping practices have reached a level where objectivity has been replaced by sensationalism and manufactured excitement. By exaggerating the importance of findings, writers are seen to undermine the impartiality of science, fuel skepticism and alienate readers.
The idea that sexism in any form might be benevolent is counterintuitive – but is it genuine? That was a question explored in the paper “Benevolent Sexism and the Gender Gap in Startup Evaluation.”