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 […]
Have japan’s national universities been ordered — or coerced — into dismantling their humanities and social science programs or not? Jeff Kingston of Temple University Japan walks us through an answer tangled up in patriotism, politics and the nation’s ailing academy.
Although a U.S. government shutdown has apparently been kicked down the road just a little bit longer, but a potential new shutdown — and its ruinous consequences for grant-funded science –always seems to be just around the corner.
Even when the news is good — women win grants from the ESRC at the same rate as men, and those grants are actually a bit larger on average — it’s tinged with bad — because there are so few senior women in academic social sciences men still get majority of the money.
Two decades ago two curious scientists from very different fields wondered how many people live at various altitudes. Aided by federal funding, their inquiries have helped in area ranging from disaster preparedness to cancer research to fresher snack foods. Now the duo have been honored with a Golden Goose Award.
If the funding allocated to universities on the basis of the REF is correlated to the amount of grant income universities already receive, what is the point of the output assessment process? Jon Clayden suggests this apparent double-counting exercise is not the best we can do.
Citing an aging population and concerns about economic competitiveness, Japan’s education ministry offers a drastic solution for the national universities: Get rid of social science and humanities departments, and do it now.
While the initial splash made by ‘The Metric Tide,’ an independent review on the role of metrics in research assessment, has died down since its release last month, the underlying critique continues to make waves.
Objective outsiders focused on the purse or knowledgeable insiders focused on the scholarship — who should decide the best way to derive the productivity and innovations sought from Britain’s Research Councils?