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 […]
We want decisions to be based on data and evidence and not ideology or gut feelings. But being presented with research results only starts the process of understanding what to draw from it.
There’s a rankings mania affecting institutions of higher education. But just because it’s a mania, does that make bad?
As we continue to examine the role of ranking in the academic world, it’s worth noting that by 2040 it’s expected that a quarter of the Times Higher Education top 200 will be schools in Asia.
Awareness and prestige of universities is increasingly being driven by their exposure on online platforms. But what does that really mean? Fernando Rosell-Aguilar explores that question.
Affective judgments lead us to focus on individual tragedies while blinding us to large-scale tragedy. How can knowing this help us craft the best responses?
In marketing and in nontraditional education the words and concepts of neuroscience are appropriated with abandon. In many cases, despite the veneer of research respectability this suggests, the results are anything but scientific.
In an article from The Conversation’s ‘Hard Evidence’ series, Lancaster’s Jill Johnes looks at the numbers and finds the more mature undergraduate population has grown slowly, but with a spike this year.
Academics already tend to have a bone to pick with the Myers Briggs Type Indicator as anything other than a parlor game. Nonetheless, while the personality test has a hold on the popular imagination it shouldn’t enter the workplace.