Search results

Basic science is an inherently international activity. Its principal goal is the production of new knowledge which is evaluated according to universal standards. In terms of membership and goals scientific communities have been international since their emergence during the seventeenth century. Basic science today consists of hundreds of research problem areas in which groups of scientists study similar problems and exchange information across national boundaries. International scientific cooperation occurs on several levels ranging from informal communication between individual researchers to multilateral agreements between governments and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs).

The problem of religious and cultural upbringing and education is one of the pressing problems of social policy. Illiteracy in terms of knowledge of one's historical roots and true cultural values, lack of spiritual and moral priorities among young people — all these factors can pose a threat to the national security of Russia in preserving its integrity. This article reveals some of the causes of social problems and suggests ways to resolve possible conflict situations.

I Co-operative Processes and the Production of Scientific Knowledge -- The Theoretical Significance of Co-operative Research -- The Practical Management of Scientists' Actions: The Influence of Patterns of Knowledge Development in Biology on Cooperations Between University Biologists and Non-Scientists -- II Collaborations Between Scientists and Non-Scientists at the Grassroots -- Cooperation Between Medical Researchers and a Self-Help Movement: The Case of the German Retinitis Pigmentosa Society -- The Knowledge Interests of the Environmental Movement and Its Potential for Influencing the Development of Science -- The Scientist, the Fisherman and the Oyster Farmer -- What We Have Learned from the Amsterdam Science Shop -- III Collaborations in National Contexts -- The Orientation of the Public Sciences in a Post-Colonial-Society: The Experience of India -- Workers' Faculties and the Development of Science Cadres in the First Decade of Soviet Power -- Intellectuals in Social Movements: The Experts of "Solidarity" -- IV Collaborations and the Emergence of New Scientific Fields -- Social Change, Trade Union Politics, and Sociology of Work -- Social Sciences and Political Projects: Reform Coalitions Between Social Scientists and Policy-Makers in France, Italy, and West Germany -- Attracting Audiences and the Emergence of Toxicology as a Practical Science -- Epilogue -- The Causes and Consequences of Collaborations Between Scientists and Non-Scientific Groups.

Experiments offer a useful methodological tool to examine issues of importance to political scientists. The historical and cultural differences between experiments in behavioral economics and social psychology are discussed. Issues of central concern to experimentalists are covered, including impact versus control, mundane versus experimental realism, internal versus external validity, deception, and laboratory versus field experiments. Advantages and disadvantages of experimentation are summarized.

Social work today faces a crucial watershed: Will the field continue to promulgate unsound and detrimental beliefs about social work research and knowledge, or will the field fully embrace the heuristic paradigm and thereby realize its true potential as a first-rate science committed to humanistic ideals? Proponents of unsound and detrimental beliefs have obscured the choice for social workers by systematically and thoroughly misrepresenting the heuristic paradigm, making unwarranted and misleading claims for the paradigms to which it is opposed (logical empiricism and relativism), and confusing the issues at stake for the field. Accordingly, this article helps social workers recognize the tenets and implications of each of the three paradigms for research that social work has available to it—the heuristic paradigm, logical empiricism, and relativism—so that social workers can make a truly informed choice about the best approach to knowledge in their field.

In the context of health, safety, and environmental decisions, the concept of risk involves value judgments that reflect much more than just the probability and consequences of the occurrence of an event. This article conceptualizes risk as a game, in which the rules must be socially negotiated within the context of a specific problem. This contextualist view of risk provides insight into why technical approaches to risk management often fail with problems such as those involving radiation and chemicals, where scientific experts and the public disagree on the nature of the risks. It also highlights the need for the interested parties to define and play the game, thus emphasizing the importance of institutional, procedural, and societal processes in risk management decisions. This contextualist approach is illustrated using the problem of siting hazardous waste facilities.

Résumé La distribution des salaires et des richesses est un sujet de préoccupation. Les conséquences écologiques et l'impact du marché sur les relations humaines ne sont pas prises en compte par la théorie de l'efficience. La science économique traditionnelle se défend : les agents sont supposés être, par leur nature la plus profonde, des êtres humains motivés seulement par l'intérêt. Il n'y a donc pas de communauté qui soit dommageable. La titrisation est seulement un exemple de comment les présuppositions de la science économique ont été dommageables pour la communauté. Une partie de la solution à la crise de l'économie est une nouvelle science économique.

Contemporary pol'al theorists are seen to have added little to the study of development since K. Marx, M. Weber, & E. Durkheim. Development is now a problem of universal concern, but it remains to be defined as a problem. Only econ's seems to have found some criteria by which to define it in the strict econ sense. Examples are cited. Development is a problem of choice in planning. Constraints are set by the scarcity of resources & by the fact that all projects cannot be implemented at the same time. Choice is also involved in strategies to be used (the role of the gov vs that of private individuals & firms). The role soc sci'ts ought to play to generate development-oriented educ needs to be clarified. 3 conceptual approaches in recent development studies are explored: normative, structural, & behavioral. Representative of the 1st is Talcott Parsons, of the 2nd, David Apter, of the 3rd, Leonard W. Doob. This last is the most recent & as yet scattered orientation; it has been able to incorporate methodologically both normative & structural variables. These 3 dimensions taken together suggest a general theory of choice or development which would incorporate norms, changes in structural patterns, & determinants of motivation & personality in relation to culture. Such an integrated approach requires examining modernizing societies within the dynamic, often punitive, highly complex internat'l system. Org'ed res is called for. M. Maxfield.

"Written to provide grounding in behavioral insights research, Behavioral Science in the Wild assists managers to implement research findings on behavioral change in their own workplace operations. In particular, this book shares prescriptive advice on how a manager who reads a specific research finding from a paper can incorporate that finding into their business or policy problem. Created as a follow-up to The Behaviorally Informed Organization co-edited by Dilip Soman, Behavioral Science in the Wild takes a step back to address the "why" and "how" behind BI's origins, and how best to translate and scale behavioral science from lab-based research findings. Governments, for-profit enterprises, and welfare organizations have increasingly started relying on findings from the behavioral sciences to develop more accessible and user-friendly products, processes, and experiences for their end-users. While there is a burgeoning science that helps to understand why people act and make the decisions that they do, and how their actions can be influenced, we still lack a precise science and strategic insights into how some key theoretical findings can be successfully translated, scaled, and applied in the field. Nina Mažar and Dilip Soman are joined by leading figures from both the academic and applied behavioral sciences to develop a nuanced framework for how managers can best translate results from pilot studies into their own organizations and behaviour change challenges using behavioral science."--

The American Political Science Association recently cautioned against the use of misinformation (giving research participants false information about the state of the world) in research with human subjects. This recommendation signals a growing recognition, as experimental research itself grows in prevalence in political science, that deceptive practices pose ethical problems. But what is wrong with misinformation in particular? I argue that while this question certainly has an ethical dimension, misinformation is bad for inference too. Misinformation moves us away from answering questions about the political world effectively. I propose a straightforward, intuitive solution to this twofold problem: tell the truth.