Social, Behavioral Scientists Eligible to Apply for NSF S-STEM Grants
Solicitations are now being sought for the National Science Foundation’s Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics program, and in an unheralded […]
The eternal conflict between the abstract and the applicable haunts the halls of many business schools. One way to help close the gap between research and practice is to re-examine how ‘impact’ is measured in the field.
If you were to make up a fantasy football team for, say an intellectual Premier League, which thinks from Socrates forward might be among your picks?
The Dutch Senate last year passed a new Standard Evaluation Protocol that highlights the importance of social impact for research. Here, three academics from Erasmus University discuss some of the implications, using their own field of development studies as an example.
A roundtable sponsored by the U.S. National Research Council will examine applications of social and behavioral science.
Reporting on panel looking at the UK’s Research Excellence Framework, Liz Morrish looks at whether the assessment tools created by government have extended their reach and left academics exposed.
A very strong overall REF performance signifies a large concentration of outstanding work. It is an unambiguous plus. All the same, precise league table positions in the REF, indicator by indicator, should be taken with a grain of salt.
Measuring impact was a key feature of the just-released Research Education Framework in the UK. But ‘impact’ isn’t as fair a measurement as we could hope.
A network of coalitions of research universities from around the world have come out with a strong statement stressing the importance of social science and humanities in the academy and among policymakers.