Meaning and the Moral Sciences (Routledge Revivals)

Addressing the policy challenges and opportunities of “Big data”

Statistical significance tests are unnecessary even when properly done and properly interpreted: Reply to commentaries

This review seeks to understand the implications of empiricism, interpretivism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, pluralism, and solipsism in social science inquiry within social reality, using scoping review method. An in-depth review of the literature was conducted to understand the various philosophical alignments or paradigms applied in social sciences research. The study is aimed at understanding and applying these paradigms with the view of having a deep comprehension of the turbulences plaguing society and proffering solutions to them. From the review, it was discovered that the various philosophical alignments in social science inquiry provide the scientist or researcher with a worldview of the different perspectives and multiple levels of analysis of the social world. Thus, creating a systematic lens from which individuals (at several levels), groups, and organizations are examined to know the; “when”, “how”, and “why” they behave the way and manner that they do. It was concluded that an adequate understanding of these paradigms would better shape the methodology to be adopted in conducting research studies within the social and/or behavioural sciences. This will help determine its objectivity, rigor, or the extent to which scientific methodology is applied within social science researches. Lastly, a combination of these paradigms creates a mixed-method, which demonstrates knowledge validity and objectivity in investigator triangulation (which involves; observation, questionnaire administration, and interview), data triangulation (which encompasses collecting data at different times from different people in different places as a cross-check for validity and to check the interpretation and conclusion arrived at), methodological triangulation (which includes within-method triangulation and between method triangulation: the former entails the application of various techniques within the same method, while the latter applies a combination of research methods), generalization, verification, explanation, and deductions. This will allow for data gathering and/or fact-finding, in search of new knowledge, and subsuming new valid knowledge, enhance research results and findings efficacy.

Social science research has been attacked by neoliberal thinkers who allege that such research lacks economic objectives. In the face of neoliberal and positivist criteria for evaluating the social impact of social science inquiry, social science researchers are developing qualitative evaluation methodologies through which we can have direct contact with citizens. These qualitative methodologies declare our social responsibility as social researchers in addressing relevant problems, especially those affecting the most vulnerable people. From these qualitative methodologies, the most vulnerable groups are included in the assessment of the social impacts of social research. Some examples of people who have participated in this qualitative evaluation include women, youth, immigrants, and Roma organizations. Participants perceived social science researchers as being far from their social reality, but in this research, they began to overcome their skepticism that social science research can help to solve those problems affecting their everyday lives.

Chava Frankfort-Nachmias et al.’s eighth edition of the commended, ‘Research Methods in the Social Sciences’ aims to offer researchers a thorough and logical guide to undertaking social research. This edition includes new studies in respect to conducting research in a digital age, computer software packages and more up-todate examples on conducting social science research. The text is comprehensive and student-friendly, covering seven main areas of social science research: the scientific approach; the relationship between theory and research; ethics; research design; measurement and quantification; sampling; data collection; and data processing and analysis.

Much publicity has been given to attempts to discredit a belief in God on the grounds that such a belief does not sit well with scientific thinking in the physical and biological sciences. The present article seeks to argue that this stance overlooks the contribution of scientific methodologies in social science research. The article focuses on the methods of triangulation and of case study for establishing the validity and reliability of evidence in social research and concludes that the case study approach is valid for providing empirical scientific evidence for the existence of God.

The News of the Week article that reports on Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) questioning the need to fund social science research at the National Science Foundation is alarming and shortsighted (“Senate panel chair asks why NSF funds social sciences,” 12 May, p. [829][1]). Social science research is at the fundamental core of basic research and has much to contribute to the economic viability of the United States. Twenty years of direct and jointly funded social and ecosystem science research at Colorado State University's Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory has produced deep insights into environmental and societal impacts of political upheaval, land use, and climate change in parts of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Beyond greatly advancing our understanding of the coupled human-environmental system, the partnership of social and ecosystem science has brought scientists and decision-makers together to begin to develop solutions to difficult problems. Insights from the social sciences about the vulnerability, sustainability, and resilience of social and environmental systems have greatly increased our understanding of the complex interactions of the world on which we depend. The contributions of social and ecological science for data analyses associated with spatial relationships, transfer of goods and services, valuation, and decision-making processes have improved our understanding of how human activities are altering environmental systems worldwide. These findings have become the core of policy and development decisions used throughout the world. It is critical that the NSF support social science funding and that, as budget decisions are made, the social science allocation should move forward equally with increases as in other basic and applied research. Failure to do so will further hinder U.S. competitiveness in the future and will slow transfer of knowledge and usefulness to the public. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.312.5775.829a

Does Germany Need a (New) Research Ethics for the Social Sciences?

The public are increasingly becoming involved in scientific research across the globe. Often referred to as ‘citizen science’, this field of scientific practice has seen remarkable growth over the last decade, and marine science is no exception. Marine citizen science projects are now addressing a wide variety of environmental knowledge-gaps on temporal and spatial scales which have previously been unachievable. One such issue is species range extension in association with changes in the marine environment (such as warming ocean currents moving polewards). In Australia, members of the public are contributing to robust scientific understanding of range shifting marine species through the Redmap citizen science project (redmap.org.au). Redmap asks marine users to submit photographs of out-of-range marine species to a database via their website or smartphone app. Given the urgent need to dramatically increase scientific knowledge of changes occurring in the marine environment, members of the public who frequent the marine environment are well-placed to expand the scale of data collection. Yet, engaging the public in large-scale citizen science projects can be challenging without understanding public perspectives on their potential involvement in scientific research. This paper presents novel social scientific research on the target audience (primarily fishers and divers, but includes all other users) for marine citizen science projects. We present results from a national survey of 1145 marine users which highlights public interest in marine citizen science and uncovers the significant barriers and drivers for public engagement. Key considerations for project design and volunteer recruitment communication are discussed.

Innovative scientific research plays a crucial role in addressing global challenges, such as healthcare and environmental and security issues, while research in social sciences and the humanities occupies a key function in understanding emerging social phenomena. The speed and depth of scientific research, understood in its broadest sense, depends on fostering collaborative exchanges between different communities and assuring its widest dissemination. This, in turn, is fundamental for the constant evolution of science and human progress. Access to research output not only increases the returns from public investment in this area, but also reinforces open scientific inquiry. It encourages diversity of opinion, promotes new areas of work and enables the exploration of topics not envisioned by the initial investigators. Collaborative exchanges help avoid the unnecessary duplication of research and address some of the global health inequalities. Timely and cost-efficient access to scientific research, therefore, contributes to increasing general economic and social welfare. More than any other kind of research, publicly funded scientific research constitutes an essential building block for further progress and innovation, one that is often seen as a collective good. For this reason, the common assumption is that, for the greater good of science and the public interest, publicly funded research should be made accessible without restriction. This principle of unfettered access also entails the freedom to use and reuse publicly funded scientific research.

This article reports a study assessing the contribution of current social work journal publications to a cumulative body of research that is capable of informing interventions. Thirteen journals published from 1993 to mid-1997 were reviewed. Analysis was guided by the view that the focus and design of studies should correspond to and supply the knowledge needed to perform different practice tasks. Accordingly, journal research articles were classified by their potential contribution to practice decisions requiring descriptive, explanatory, or control knowledge. Research aiming at control knowledge, informing the selection and implementation of interventions, was further evaluated by whether the interventions and outcomes studied were sufficiently specified to permit reliable research replication and application in practice. Very few of the published articles were found to report research on interventions, and even fewer used designs that enable replication. Factors affecting the rate and quality of research and interventions are also discussed. Key words: functions of knowledge; intervention research; knowledge for practice; research design; research purpose Social work has long been concerned with strengthening the extent to which its research is capable of informing and guiding practice (see Greenwood, 1957; Kadushin, 1959; Kane, 1982). Over the years increasing attention has been directed toward this purpose. This attention resulted in the founding in the 1970s of the first two journals dedicated to publishing research (Social Work Research & Abstracts and the Journal of Social Service Research) and the founding about 20 years later of a journal dedicated to research on practice (Research on Social Work Practice). These advances notwithstanding, concern persists that social work researchers are not meeting the needs of practitioners. Such concern was reflected in the convening of a symposium in 1996 on psychosocial intervention research, cosponsored by the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research and the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research at the National Institutes of Health, as well as in the publication of a special issue on intervention research in the journal Social Work Research (September 1997). Emanating from similar concerns, this article reviews current publications in social work and assesses their potential in contributing to a body of knowledge of effective interventions. This review is based on the premise that social work practice must adhere to and be guided by effectiveness criteria. That is, interventions should be selected and used on the basis of their empirically demonstrated effectiveness. Because journal publications are a major vehicle for accumulating and disseminating professional knowledge, they constitute a primary source of guidance for practice. Accordingly, we examined the current research published in social work journals in relation to its potential for contributing to effective practice. PURPOSE OF PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE The premise that intervention should be based on relevant and valid knowledge is at the core of professional practice. Rosen (1978, 1996) has conceptualized the knowledge needs of practice as related to the purposes for which knowledge is used and its function in practice. Three types of knowledge were distinguished: descriptive, explanatory, and control. Descriptive knowledge guides practitioners in classifying phenomena they encounter into meaningful conceptual categories. Often it is used by practitioners in deciding whether and to what extent a particular manifestation or event should be of concern-that is, considered a problem. Descriptive knowledge includes information on the characteristics, indicators, or incidences of phenomena of professional concern (for example, poverty, child abuse, maladaptive behavior, mental disorders, and community violence). Descriptive knowledge, in articulation with its values, also helps to formulate social work's objectives (Rosen, 1978), informs policy decisions about which services are needed by which client groups, and aids practitioners in assessing and classifying clients and problems into professionally meaningful categories. …

We are living in an age that at once extols and deeply distrusts expertise. While this paradox is played out in many arenas, it is interesting that the field of research, particularly in the social sciences, is an area where this is particularly apparent. This distrust of expertise is exemplified by the belief that there is no one truth owned by expertise or by the expert; and that the pursuit of knowledge is open to all. While it used to be that democratic theory held that expertise, at least in theory, would be open to all who play by the scientific rules, now the rules themselves are held up to question and many question the privileging of expert opinion. Of course, these issues all coalesce around questions on the nature of truth and of research. We especially must ask, how do we or even can we derive truth from research? These are some of the questions that arise from the present issue relating to participatory and action research. Unlike scientific inquiry which is based on the premise that the environment can be controlled and that variables can be strictly introduced and accounted for, social science research is more disorderly. The variables cannot be easily identified and their interactions are more complex than strictly planned experiments. The question of how to study social (and by implication educational) problems has been a conceptual dilemma since at least the late nineteenth century, if not earlier. The question arose in conjunction with the rise of what today we call the social sciences, including economics, sociology, anthropology, and history. There was the widespread belief that science and scientific inquiry could ameliorate all of the world's problems. If social issues were only studied in a deliberate manner, their solution would be revealed by the data. Throughout the twentieth century, we have seen a growth in the reliance on the expert to solve social problems and a simultaneous repugnance and then revolt against the idea of the expert. There has been a continual tension between what is considered expert knowledge and the knowledge of the lay person. The argument has been conducted from many different aspects. Some have questioned the role of expert knowledge in solving social problems. Others have rejected the very idea of objective knowledge, particularly in the social realm. After all, knowledge is shaped by human beings who apply their own construction of meaning to outside reality. Hence, knowledge is constantly changing and subjective. Within education, these discussions have focused on who the researcher is and who is being studied. For example, we can examine a simple educational problem such as which educational intervention works best. In the bad old pre-scientific days, individuals tried out various solutions on their own and came to their own conclusion about what worked. As scientific criteria became more rigorous, it became harder for the amateur to do research on her (or generally his) own. This phenomenon fits with what the historian Thomas Haskell has called the recession of causation. While Haskell was referring to research on a host of social problems, most explicitly poverty, the term fits educational research as well. According to Haskell, in the late nineteenth century, charity workers thought that simple observation and study would lead to a better understanding of the roots of poverty and how to deal with its consequences. What happened instead was that the problems became more intractable and the solutions less accessible. As the research became more abstract and less connected to the daily world, experts came to increasingly hold the keys to knowledge, wisdom, and hence to change. While originally those directly involved in the field were the researchers and experts (as opposed to the individuals affected), now `practitioners' were relegated to the role of consumers of knowledge rather than creators. At no time, however, were those most directly affected by social science experts, namely the clients, considered to possess expertise. …

Within the scope of the responsibility of promoting policies and legislation in the field of Science, Technology and Innovation (CTI) and the materialization of its Action Plan of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation (MESCTI), a proposal for a General Code is presented of Ethics in Science, Technology and Innovation (CGECTI). This proposal arises from the need to fill gaps in the legislation on ethics in science and technology and was created with a view to presenting the general principles of ethics in carrying out Scientific Research and Experimental Development, Technology Transfer and Innovation activities; to promote the monitoring of the application of ethical principles internationally established and applicable to the exercise of scientific research, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic, International Conventions, National Policy on Science, Technology and Innovation, the Statute of the Career of Scientific Investigators in force and other applicable legislation; and contribute to the scientific affirmation of Angola in the context of nations. Likewise, the aforementioned code proposal should consider principles and elements such as transversality, compatibility, definitions, supervision, honesty, integrity, training and skills and security. The preparation of this code proposal was based on some bibliographic sources produced by UNESCO, OECD, the Republic of Mozambique and Higher Education Institutions. The proposal comprises seven chapters divided by object, scope and purpose; ethical principles; national ethics commission; scientific area ethical council; duties and rights; sanctions; and final provisions. The proposal highlights the creation of a plural national commission, involving sectors of the state, the private sector, academic and scientific institutions, professional associations and civil society, as well as the formation of ethics committees by scientific area. This proposal should be submitted to the actors of the National System of Science, Technology and Innovation for contributions.

Towards a practice-theoretical classification of sustainable energy consumption initiatives: Insights from social scientific energy research in 30 European countries

The Day in Court: Legal Education as Sociolegal Research Practice in the Form of an Ethnographic Study