Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?
The landscape of academic grant funding is notoriously competitive and plagued by lengthy, bureaucratic processes, exacerbated by difficulties in finding willing reviewers. Distributed […]
Analyzing a Canadian Approach to Assessing Impact
Efforts to assess scholarly impacts must account for the great diversity of scholarly work and ensure that researchers themselves play a leading role in selecting those indicators that best suit their work. Peter Severinson reports on work published by the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences in Canada that hopes will provide guidance to university administrators, public servants, and other members of the research community undertaking the demanding work of impact assessment.
Social Science Space 2017 Round Up
Last year Social Science Space presented more than 200 articles on the impact, infrastructure and industry surrounding social and behavioral science and research. Looking back over those articles, we’ve chosen a few of special merit. Social Science Space plans to continue to provide the latest that the new year has to offer. Stay up to date with us to see what is in store.
Is There a Need for Novelty in Science?
In a recent survey of over 1,500 scientists, more than 70 percent of them reported having been unable to reproduce other scientists’ findings at least once. Reproducibility of findings is a core foundation of science and realizing how difficult it is to assess novelty should give funding agencies and scientists pause. Progress in science depends on new discoveries and following unexplored paths – but solid, reproducible research requires an equal emphasis on the robustness of the work.
Washington and Social Science: Bullets Dodged in 2017
The House and Senate cleared the final version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was signed into law on December 22. Congress also approved a short-term continuing resolution to keep the government funded through January 19, and cleared a disaster assistance package for victims of hurricanes and wildfires
Science vs. 2017: Five Essential Reads
2017 may well be remembered as the year of alternative facts and fake news. Truth took a hit, and experts seemed to lose the public’s trust and scientists felt under siege as the Trump administration took office. Five stories, from The Conversation, showcase where scholars and scientists stand in this new climate and various ways to consider the value research holds for society.
Close Encounters with Behavioral Economics: Four Essential Reads for 2017
The year 2017 turned out to be the start for mainstream behavioral economics after a leading practitioner in the field won a Nobel prize for his work. Throughout 2017, The Conversation asked experts in economics, psychology and other areas to address the power of this burgeoning field, as well as its potential for misuse. Here are some articles for your consideration.
Sexual Harassment and Universities
Developing an effective response to sexual harassment in the academic industry — by no means a new phenomenon, notes Robert Dingwall — requires us to consider questions about institutional memory, occupational cultures, and organizational silos, rather than badly behaved individuals.
Putting Big Data to Big Use
The applications of big data provide a very mixed picture about its uses and abuses, in government, academe and private industry. And while where you stand on the net impact depends, as the cliche goes, on where you sit, a panel at the recent ESRC Festival of Social Science came out qualitatively optimistic about the future.
