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 […]
The head of the House subcommittee that oversees the budget of federal science agencies cites fears that ordinary people may not appreciate the subtleties of social science.
Although the GOP is usually fingered as anti-science, biased attitudes toward scientific information and trust in the scientific community can be found among liberals and conservatives alike, new research shows. As you might expect, biases vary based on the science topic being considered.
New Zealand native Brian Sutton-Smith, a developmental psychologist who brought study of fun off the playground and into the classroom, passed away earlier this month at age 90.
With a new Congress expected to take up old causes that might not sit well with the science community, a consortium of social and behavioral science associations brought the message home to legislators that social science was part of their district, too.
Understanding what drives terrorism offers a good first step in deterring or derailing it. In the latest article from our collaboration with the journal ‘Policy Insights from Brain and Behavioral Science,’ two psychologists examine what motivates terrorism — and how our response to it can succor the bad actors.
The eternal conflict between the abstract and the applicable haunts the halls of many business schools. One way to help close the gap between research and practice is to re-examine how ‘impact’ is measured in the field.
A critique of the recent pre-general election ‘Business of People’ report has lead the chair of the organization behind the report, Britain’s Campaign for Social Science, to respond to arguments that social scientists should not be asking for increases in government spending on science and research.
Publication of the results of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework evaluation of the quality of work undertaken in all UK universities last December attracted much attention. Ron Johnston reviews a book that savagely criticizes the peer reviews undertaken at the heart of the REF but also the mock exercises as universities prepared their submissions.