Suchergebnisse

ObjectivesResearch on the relationship between teaching productivity and base salary is sparse, but tends to find no association. However, the research is based largely on student evaluations (student evaluation of teaching (SET)). No study uses peer review of teaching, which may capture qualities of excellence in teaching missed by SETs. The present study addresses this gap.MethodsData refer to all 70 faculty in the social sciences at a Carnegie research‐extensive university. Measures of teaching include peer‐review scores, student evaluations, and teaching awards. Controls are incorporated for other predictors of base salary, including research productivity, years of experience, service, and demographics.ResultsControlling for the other variables, peer review of teaching was unrelated to base salary. However, each year of experience enhanced salary by $905, each book was associated with $2,309 in salary, and membership in the economics department enhanced salary by $23,076. The full model explained 84 percent of the variation in base salaries.ConclusionPeer review of teaching was no better a predictor of salary than SETs. While excellence in teaching is often believed to affect base salary, the present analysis finds no evidence that this is the case. Future work is needed to assess the association in other organizational contexts.

The central issue of this paper is the so-called dispute over methods (Methodenstreit), which is based on the essential difference between natural and social phenomena. Methodological problems in sociology are related to the determination of its subject matter, and the history of the science has showed that these problems have represented the main point of disagreement between theoreticians. The debates on the issues of natural and social phenomena and, thus related, manners of their examination, began as early as in the times of ancient philosophy – starting with Aristotle, and continued through the so-called Galilean tradition that would find its peak in the positivist movement and the historistic school as its opposition. The paper draws attention to the theoretical-methodological positions of both sides in this dispute, the reaffirmation of hermeneutics, as well as the ideological background. Furthermore, certain opinions that formed through the integration of these two methodological approaches are also discussed here. The time of the Methodenstreit is the time when sociology was constituted, thus the concluding remarks emphasize the importance of this dispute for the constitution of sociology as a science, with a particular reflection on the influence of historism on German sociologists.

The article focuses on methodological debates between feminisms and sociologies. It suggests that before the advent of feminist studies, social scientists had not engaged critically with patriarchal and androcentric structures which oppress and dominate women. The article points out that in the feminist approach, theory and praxis are necessarily intertwined. It uses Sandra Harding's classification of feminist epistemologies as a framework within which to map feminist studies in India. It provides examples of research studies for each methodological approach, discusses the use of feminist methodologies in sociological enquiry and argues for a more gender-sensitive approach in social research. Lastly, it goes on to detail a body of work in feminist ethnography, citing instances of work in different fields that have made inroads using feminist research.

In 1977 the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was formed, with 21 institutes covering a variety of areas. The fundamental principles guiding social science research conducted by this institute & other Chinese agencies include integration of theory & practice & the encouragement of diverse viewpoints. While this second policy was suppressed during the Cultural Revolution, it is now once again being supported. W. H. Stoddard.

"Real Social Science presents a new, hands-on approach to social inquiry. The theoretical and methodological ideas behind the book, inspired by Aristotelian phronesis, represent an original perspective within the social sciences, and for the first time this volume gives readers a set of studies exemplifying what applied phronesis looks like in practice. The reflexive analysis of values and power gives new meaning to the impact of research on policy and practice. Real Social Science is a major step forward in a novel and thriving field of research. This book will benefit scholars, researchers, and students who want to make a difference in practice, not just in the academy. Its message will make it essential reading for students and academics across the social sciences"--

In social sciences the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) is an ever growing phenomenon. Emanating from the need of knowledge about society and economy, we are constantly striving to create ideas and methods for a better use of information. This study analyses different practices such as business process management, business process modelling or relationship marketing. It also discusses the use of ICT in a variety of examples taken from different fields such as education, web clipping, public safety, tactic knowledge, or protection of intellectual property and offers an ou

Concepts lie at the core of social science theory and methodology. They provide substance to theories; they form the basis of measurement; they influence the selection of cases. Social Science Concepts: A Users Guide explores alternative means of concept construction and their impact on the role of concepts in measurement, case selection, and theories. While there exists a plethora of books on measurement, scaling, and the like, there are virtually no books devoted to the construction and analysis of concepts and their role in the research enterprise. Social Science Concepts: A Users Guide provides detailed and practical advice on the construction and use of social science concepts; a Web site provides classroom exercises. It uses a wide range of examples from political science and sociology such as revolution, welfare state, international disputes and war, and democracy to illustrate the theoretical and practical issues of concept construction and use. It explores the means of constructing complex, multilevel, and multidimensional concepts. In particular, it examines the classic necessary and sufficient condition approach to concept building and contrasts it with the family resemblance approach. The consequences of valid concept construction are explored in both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Social Science Concepts: A Users Guide will prove an indispensable guide for graduate students and scholars in the social sciences. More broadly, it will appeal to scholars in any field who wish to think more carefully about the concepts used to create theories and research designs. For Course Use: Social Science Concepts: A Users Guide has been written with classroom use in mind. Many of the chapters have been successfully taught at the Annual Training Institute on Qualitative Research Methods which is sponsored by the Consortium on Qualitative Research Methods. Feedback from those experiences has been incorporated into the text. Each chapter provides useful, practical, and detailed advice on how to construct, evaluate, and use concepts. To make the volume more useful, an extensive set of classroom exercises is available from the author's Web page at http://www.u.arizona.edu/~ggoertz/social_science_concepts.html. These include questions about prominent published work on concepts, measures, and case selection; in addition there are logic exercises and questions regarding large-N applications

Interdisciplinary research in social sciences has become a rather popular theme of discussion, having garnered the attention of researchers, not in small part due to the increasing interest of policy makers and public institutions in this kind of approaches. Discussion and mention of interdisciplinary social research has been more prevalent in literature since the late 90s and has steadily increased to this day. Yet, for all the popularity that such approaches have attained, they are hindered by the ongoing process of fragmentation and specialization in social sciences, in what some authors designated as taxonomic splitting run amok. This order of events may bemuse many, as it may seem paradoxical the way in which social sciences are experiencing a specialization trend, more acute in degree than ever before, at the same time that enterprises, public institutions and governments tend to require interdisciplinary solutions and transdisciplinary teams working for them. This presentation will address the process of academic fragmentation within the social sciences and their history, the growth of interdisciplinary trends in social research and propose an explanation for how this came to pass, concluding with the answer to the question of "can we consider interdisciplinarity a new paradigm in social sciences?"