Suchergebnisse

"The book contains essays on current issues in Social and Political Sciences, such as the issues of governance and social order; social development and community development; global challenges and inequality; civil society and social movement; IT-based community and social transformation; poverty alleviation and corporate social responsibility; and gender issues. Asia and the Pacific are the particular regions that the conference focuses on as they have become new centers of social and political development. Therefore, this book covers areas that have been traditionally known as the social and political areas such as communication studies, political studies, governance studies, criminology, sociology, social welfare, anthropology and international relations. The book will help shed light on what social and political scholars in Asia and the Pacific have done in terms of research and knowledge development, as well as the new frontiers of research that have been explored and opening up, which can connect the two regions with the rest of the globe."--Provided by publisher.

The "social licence to operate" has been invoked in science policy discussions including the 2007 Universal Ethical Code for scientists issued by the UK Government Office for Science. Drawing from sociological research on social licence and STS interventions in science policy, the authors explore the relevance of expectations of a social licence for scientific research and scientific contributions to public decision-making, and what might be involved in seeking to create one. The process of seeking a social licence is not the same as trying to create public or community acceptance for a project whose boundaries and aims have already been fully defined prior to engagement. Such attempts to "capture" the public might be successful from time to time but their legitimacy is open to question especially where their engagement with alternative research futures is "thin". Contrasting a national dialogue on stem cells with the early history of research into bioenergy, we argue that social licence activities need to be open to a "thicker" engagement with the social. Co-constructing a licence suggests a reciprocal relationship between the social and the scientific with obligations for public and private institutions that shape and are shaped by science, rather than just science alone.

All three of the books under review— Science and Social Science by Malcolm Williams, Rethinking Science by Jan Faye, and Open the Social Sciences by the members of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences (Immanuel Wallerstein, chair)—argue for a broadly naturalist approach in which the social sciences are seen as of a piece with the natural sciences. Fortunately, all three do so in a discriminating way that avoids simple options and that appreciates the important ways the social-scientific disciplines require their own approach. Open the Social Sciences in particular also contains detailed and wise advice as to how the contemporary social sciences should proceed if they want to fulfill their ambition to explain human social behavior in a scientific way.

Background: Research ethics review practices vary considerably across countries and this variability poses a challenge for international research programmes. Although published guidelines exist, which describe underlying principles that should be considered and pragmatic approaches that could be followed in seeking ethics approval, most have roots in biomedical and clinical research. The result is that there is generally less clarity around institutional and/or country-level structures for ethics review of health policy and social sciences research. This is an important gap that needs to be addressed in order to ensure ethical practices in multi-country research programmes. Context and purpose: This paper explores research ethics requirements for a multicountry health policy research programme and provides recommendations based on experiences in seeking ethics approval. The context for this paper is a five-year, cross-country, European Commission-funded international programme: Research into Policy to enhance Physical Activity (REPOPA). Results: Ethics requirements and review processes for health policy and social sciences research varied considerably across the seven REPOPA countries. Specifically, requirements and infrastructure for ethics approval have been influenced by how the purpose and domain of health research are defined in legislation, what types of research have been most prominently funded, and international requirements for ethics approval by external funders and journal editors. Significance: Multi-country research programmes provide an opportunity to enhance and build transparent ethics review practices and to strengthen ethics review structures at all levels. Such programmes also enable reciprocal learning about relevant practices and processes for the ethical conduct of research. Keywords: Ethics committee, research, health policy, physical activity, multi-country research, research programme

In India & other newly independent countries soc res & action are closely connected. Institutions of higher learning & decisions for soc welfare belong in the sphere of gov. The press of problems, their complexity & the lack of trained personnel limit surveys which can be carried out quickly & provide readily meaningful results. A study of this kind was set up in 1956 to determine how to transmit as rapidly as possible to largely illiterate Indian villagers information about agri, hygiene, org's, etc. The Farm Radio Forum has been operated successfully in Canada since 1941 but there were questions about Indian listening, learning, & acting which needed answers before trying wide use of radio forums there. UNESCO financed an experiment in Bombay state in which radio forums (20 members each) were organized in 150 villages. For 10 weeks each group listened twice weekly to special half-hour broadcasts. 20 of the 150 exp'al villages & 20 control villages (10 with radios but no organized listening & 10 without radios) were surveyed before & after the series of broadcasts. Data were obtained from 3,200 R's & hand tabulated. Findings were: (1) that levels of knowledge increased considerably in villages with organized farm forums, very little in villages with only radios, & not at all in villages without radios, & (2) in forum villages action often followed immediately & further action was planned. After results were presented to the Community Development Commissioners Conference a resolution recommending 'Radio Farm Forums' as a means of soc educ was passed. By late 1957 farm forums were operating in 3 states & in 1959, 900 farm forums were opened over all of India. C. M. Coughenour.

Current financial and monetary difficulties in Europe are overshadowing the issue of a lack of common European identity. 200 years of nation states seem to have suppressed 1800 years of a history shaped by mutual enrichment in politics, science and the arts – a European cultural heritage. It is for the humanities and social sciences (SSH) to research, document and preserve this heritage, where the European science academies play a major role. However, a pan-European research programme on European cultural heritage and identity is still lacking, and, in comparison to the rest of the European SSH research landscape, the science academies are terra incognita. This book provides an analytical report of the first survey of basic research in the SSH conducted by the European scientific academies and related research organisations. It not only provides greatly needed information about this important area of the European research landscape, but also investigates the potential for a pan-European academies' research programme in the SSH (including a corresponding digital infrastructure) that could strengthen the integration of European research into cultural heritage and identity. The main topic of this publication is the working practices of the projects surveyed with a focus on: o the science academies of Europe o research fields and topics o running times and funding o staff and early-stage researchers o research sites and access to research material o digital research practices o publication, dissemination and visibility o international collaboration o project evaluation ; Die derzeitigen währungs- und finanzpolitischen Schwierigkeiten überlagern die seit der europäischen Integration bestehenden Defizite einer gemeinsamen europäischen Identität. Es scheint, dass zwei-hundert von Nationalstaaten geprägte Jahre unter Betonung nationaler Besonderheiten rund 1.800 Jahre vergessen gemacht haben, die von einer weltweit einzigartigen wechselseitigen Befruchtung in Politik, Wissenschaft, Kunst und Kultur geprägt gewesen sind: einem gemeinsamen kulturellen Erbe in Europa. Insbesondere die Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften erforschen, dokumentieren und bewahren dieses Erbe. Dabei spielen die Wissenschaftsakademien Europas eine herausragende Rolle. Ein pan-europäisches Forschungsprogramm zu kulturellem Erbe und kultureller Identität in Europa gibt es allerdings nicht. Die Wissenschaftsakademien sind - im Gegensatz zu der sonstigen geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschungslandschaft Europas - bislang noch weitgehend terra incognita. Dieses Buch analysiert die Ergebnisse der ersten umfassenden Um-frage über geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Grundlagenforschung an den Wissenschaftsakademien, Gelehrtengesellschaften und ähnlichen Forschungseinrichtungen Europas. Es liefert nicht nur die dringend benötigten Informationen über diesen bedeutenden Bereich der Forschungslandschaft, sondern untersucht auch das Potenzial für ein pan-europäisches Akademienforschungsprogramm, einschließlich ei-ner entsprechenden digitalen Infrastruktur, das die Integration euro-päischer Forschung zu kulturellem Erbe und kultureller Identität be-fördern könnte. Unter anderem werden folgende Themen beleuchtet: Die europäischen Wissenschaftsakademien und Informationen über Forschungsbereiche und -themen, Laufzeiten und Finanzierung, Personalausstattung, ehrenamtliche Unterstützung, Arbeitsstellen und Zu-griff auf Forschungsmaterialien, Nachwuchswissenschaftler/innen, di-gitale Forschungspraktiken, Publikation und Archivierung, Verbreitung und Außenwirkung, internationale Kooperationen und Projektevalua-tionen.

Intro -- Contents -- Foreword -- Preface to the New Edition -- I. Introduction -- Chapter 1 - Applying Social Science to Government -- The Point of View of This Book -- The Role of Applied Social Science -- Endnotes -- Chapter 2 - Optimism and Disillusionment -- Applying Macroeconomics -- The Planning-Programming-Budgeting System -- Demonstration and Evaluation Research -- Doubts Arise -- Other Views -- Demise of the PPB System -- Assessing Demonstration and Evaluation Research -- Endnotes -- II. Demonstration Research -- Chapter 3 - The Nature of Demonstration Research -- The Vocabulary of Demonstration Research -- The Negative Income Tax Demonstrations -- Other Income Maintenance Demonstrations -- Demonstrations of Service-Type Programs -- Endnotes -- Chapter 4 - Hurdles of Demonstration Research -- Selection Bias -- The Null Hypothesis -- Contamination -- Relations with Program Operators -- Quality and Consistency of Treatment -- Cost and Quality of Data -- Treatment of Human Subjects -- The Uncertainty of Cost-Benefit Analysis -- Conclusion -- Endnotes -- Chapter 5 - Welfare Demonstration Studies -- Supported Work -- Results Focus on Welfare -- Implications for Welfare Reform -- MDRC's Work/Welfare Demonstrations -- Endnotes -- III. Evaluation Research -- Chapter 6 - The Nature of Evaluation Research -- The Federalism Barrier Reef -- Scientific Implications -- Endnotes -- Chapter 7 - Evaluating the California GAIN Program -- The GAIN Process -- The MDRC Evaluation -- The Research Challenge -- Discoveries in the Implementation Process -- Endnotes -- Chapter 8 - The 1988 and 1996 National Welfare Reform Laws -- The Family Support Act of 1988 -- The Personal Responsibility Act of 1996 -- Endnotes -- Chapter 9 -Evaluating the Family Support Act of 1988 -- Three Strategies -- Little Fanfare or Rhetoric -- Endnotes.

Seit 1994 unterhält die Europäische Union (EU) mehrjährige Forschungsprogramme mit dezidierten sozial- und geisteswissenschaftlichen Themenschwerpunkten. Die Dissertation zeigt, wie sich die Reichweite, Finanzierung und Förderungsinstrumente weiterentwickelt haben und wie diese Entwicklungen in einem Zusammenhang mit den Veränderungen der Rolle von Forschungspolitik in der EU stehen. Die unterschiedlichen AkteurInnen ? Institutionen der EU, Stakeholder und Öffentlichkeit ? werden hinsichtlich ihrer Rolle in der Prioritätensetzung untersucht. EU-Forschungspolitik hat sich von einem wirtschaftspolitisch dominierten zu einem eigenständigen Politikbereich entwickelt. In der Arbeit wird ein analytisches Konzept entworfen, welches eine Unterscheidung zwischen Elementen der Forschungspolitik, die auf andere (Politik-)Bereiche abzielen und solche Elementen, die auf die Institutionen der Wissenschaft an sich abzielen, ermöglicht. Zweitens, wird die Rolle der AkteurInnen anhand von Konzeptionen der Zivilgesellschaft aus Theorien der deliberativen Demokratie interpretiert. Drittens, nutzt die Arbeit Konzepte der Wissenschaftssoziologie ? wie sozial robustes Wissen und die Kontextualisierung von Wissen ? zur Interpretation der Themenschwerpunktprogramme aus Sicht der wissenschaftlichen Wissensproduktion. Die empirischen Untersuchungen und Beobachtungen zeigen, zum einen, dass die EU Forschungspolitik durch andere Politikbereiche dominiert bleibt. Zum anderen, dass die Einbeziehung der Öffentlichkeit in die Politik im Diskurs der EU, insbesondere im Rahmen der Forschungspolitik, hervorgehoben wird, jedoch diese diskursiven Äußerungen nur beschränkt in die Praxis umgesetzt werden. Aus der Analyse der Prozesse und Praktiken zeigt sich, dass der Kreis an involvierten AkteurInnen eng definiert bleibt und dass die Einführung neuer Themenschwerpunkte von Entwicklungen der EU Politik allgemein abhängen, so dass auch der Grad an Veränderung der Ausschreibungstexte eingeschränkt bleibt. ; Since 1994, the European Union?s (EU) multiannual research programmes contain dedicated thematic social sciences and humanities (SSH) priorities. This thesis shows how the scope, means for funding and the policy instruments used to fund SSH research in these programmes have broadened and developed hand in hand with the changing function of research policy in the EU. The role of different actors ? the institutions of the EU, stakeholders and the wider public ? in priority setting of EU research funding are studied. EU research policy has evolved from being primarily a means to support economic policies to constituting a policy in its own right. The conceptions used to investigate this change and the roles of different actors are based on: first, an analytical differentiation between elements of research policy with the aim of supporting other policies and elements of research policy aiming at the institutions of research per se. Second are conceptions of the actors participating that are connected with notions of civil society found in theories of deliberative democracy, and third are ideas relating to the sociology of knowledge such as socially robust knowledge and the social contextualization of knowledge-making to interpret targeted research programmes in the light of knowledge-making. The empirical findings and observations of this thesis suggest, first, that research policy remains dominated by other aims. Second, the discourse of the EU institutions proclaiming the need to include stakeholders in decisions that affect them is particularly emphasized in research policy documents. Third, the practices of research policy-making on different levels only include stakeholders up to a certain degree, while SSH research programmes remain closely tied to the introduction of new policy dimensions on the EU level. Thus, the malleability of research targets in specific calls for proposals remains restricted to the boundaries set by the overarching policy dimension. ; Rafael Yann Schögler ; Zsfassung in dt. und engl. Sprache ; Graz, Univ., Diss., 2014 ; OeBB ; (VLID)240278