Research Impact and the Early Career Researcher presents chapters that reflect on the experiences that ‘early career researchers’ have had in relation to research impact. The collection is not a manual or textbook on how to achieve impact, but instead presents different voices on how researchers experience and react to the demand for impact.
Arizona State University electrical engineer Sethuraman “Panch” Panchanathan is the likely nominee to replace France Córdova as director of the National Science Foundation once Córdova’s six-year appointment ends next year
Earlier this month, Ted Hewitt, the president of Canada’s Social Science and Humanities Research Council, presented the 2019 SSHRC Impact Awards to gold medal winner Will Kymlicka and four other notables at a ceremony in Ottawa.
The gig economy is characterized by contract, freelance, or short-term work engagements with employers who do not provide benefits beyond the immediate payment. This type of transactional employment is becoming more common in academia. What does this mean for research?
Ideally, advocates say, government-sponsored scientists should follow their research where it leads, talk about it honestly and freely with the press and the public, and release unaltered information about their findings. A bill that’s currently stuck in committee would help guarantee that.
Nominations to honor an individual whose work has advanced the role of the social and behavioral sciences in enriching and enhancing public policy and good governance are being taken now. The honoree will join luminaries such as William Julius Wilson and Daniel Kahneman as recipient of the SAGE-CASBS Award, sponsored by the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) at Stanford University and SAGE Publishing.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) will be accepting applications for the Science and Technology Studies (STS) Program. With an estimated program funding of 6,200,000 (to be awarded among 40 different researchers), this is an opportunity worth considering.
Over the last three decades randomized trials have become an increasingly popular way of testing interventions designed to address developmental challenges. But do RCTs generate reliable results – or even retard progress?
The higher education system rests on the principle of meritocracy, with entry into the ‘top’ Russell Group universities supposedly the product of ability. This is despite growing attention to the over-representation of independent school students studying at the ‘top’ universities, with state school students and disadvantaged groups less likely to secure admission.
Benedikt Fecher and Sascha Friesike present the first chapter of a work in progress and invite readers to contribute to a larger collaborative writing project seeking to reframe the way we currently think about research impact.