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 […]
In the hour-long recorded conversation with Social Science Space editor Michael Todd, COSSA’s Wendy Naus discusses what individual social science scholars, students and their academic societies can do if they feel threatened by the currents in Washington, D.C.
What might Donald Trump’s ban on immigration from seven countries mean for the U.S. role in international education? And will it undermine the use of international higher education as a soft power tool for the United States? A scholar of international education gives his view.
The rush to publish a revised Common Rule for federally funded human research in the United States has created a flawed regulatory regime, says Robert Dingwall., Time to tear the whole edifice down and start over, he suggests.
Several recent high-profile incidents suggest that the confidentiality promises routinely made by social scientists have little in the way of legal support.
Our Robert Dingwall reflects on Tinder’s in-house sociologist and on the just-announced New Year’s Honours list to question just how diverse are current understandings of diversity.
The claim that Thucydides’ account of the past is useful is often extended to historiography in general, rather than just to his specific – and idiosyncratic – approach. And that, suggests Neville Morley, may be the real trap of Thucydides.
How will social science research and teaching evolve to meet the challenges and opportunities big data creates? How can we bring down barriers to make this new computational social science accessible for all social researchers? That was the subject of a panel discussion at last month’s ESRC Festival of Social Sciences 2016.
Peer review clearly isn’t perfect, but rather than simply bypassing it and releasing even more information into an overloaded system, we should focus on making it better, says this life sciences editor. The first step is to reset and clearly state our standards for quality in both publishing and peer reviewing.