Suchergebnisse

Social science has, from its very beginnings, been characterized by debates over the true nature of society and about how to best understand and explain it. At the heart of these discussions lies the question of the causal structure of the social world. Two overarching positions on this issue can be identified: causal individualism and causal holism. While causal individualism argues that we can account sufficiently for the types of causal relationships of interest to social scientists simply with reference to processes involving actions, interactions and mental properties on the part of individuals in physical settings, causal holism argues that social causation also involves higher level phenomena and/or entities, such as "macro social organisms", "structures" or "institutions". This compilation thesis makes the case for the former perspective. More specifically, the thesis aims to do two things: 1) To provide a clear account of causal individualism based on an explicit social ontology; and 2) To defend this position against the most influential versions of causal holism. It is argued that contemporary embodiments of causal holism in social scientific meta-theory (e.g. the notion that there are micro-macro mechanisms in the social sphere, the idea that social phenomena may be "micro realization robust" and the belief that social macro entities can have a downward causal effect on individuals) all stem from one and the same more fundamental error, i.e. that of treating the analytical micro-macro relationship in social science as if it were empirical.

Data drawn from a structured questionnaire administered to tenured academics (N not specified) at Norwegian Us are used to investigate differences in international publishing patterns between the natural & social sciences, & among various social science disciplines. It is concluded that social scientists publish less internationally because: (1) they tend to study phenomena that have a specific geographic & social context; (2) social scientists may have poorer publishing possibilities in international (English-language) journals; & (3) the reward system in social science publishing may be less motivating than in the natural & medical sciences. International orientation or reputation is not considered a prerequisite for being rewarded within the social sciences. 6 Tables, 18 References. Modified AA

The National Science Foundation provides support for basic social science research on law and legal institutions through the Law and Social Sciences Program. The primary emphasis of the program is on research that will enhance understanding of the nature and sources of variation in legal rules and institutions and their consequences. Proposals directed to developing methodologies for the social scientific study of law are also considered. Proposals concerning criminal aspects of the law will be considered if they relate primarily to theoretical questions in the social scientific study of the law. However, the central focus of the Law and Social Sciences Program is on noncriminal aspects of the legal system.Those who anticipate submitting proposals might keep in mind the broad concerns that are central to the program:1. The capacity of law, through statutes, administrative regulations, and court decisions, to affect individual and organizational behavior, its limitations in regulating action, conditions which enhance or diminish the impact of law, and the processes by which that impact is achieved or diminished.2. The use of alternative methods, both formal (legal) and informal (extra-legal), for dealing with disputes, and factors that contribute to the selection of the alternatives used.3. Change in the legal system, its causes and the processes by which it occurs, with particular emphasis on factors affecting the use of law as an instrument of social control.

At the rise of the twentieth century, armed with the success of natural sciences, the school of naturalism argued that the appropriate methodology for all disciplines, including social sciences, is that of natural science. The paper argued that social sciences cannot be naturalised and has its own appropriate methodology. The paper examined the arguments for naturalism and non-naturalism of the method of philosophy of social sciences. The paper employed both primary and secondary sources of data. Data collected were subjected to critical analysis and philosophical argumentation. The results showed that the nature of social sciences is such that it cannot be subjected to only scientific methods. The paper concludes that there is a need for a methodology that understands the subject matter of social sciences to address issues in social sciences. The paper addressed some key issues in philosophy of social sciences.
Keywords: Methodology, Natural sciences, Naturalism, Social sciences.

AbstractWe marshal discoveries about human behavior and learning from social science research and show how these can be used to improve teaching and learning. The discoveries are easily stated as three social science generalizations: (1) social connections motivate, (2) teaching teaches the teacher, and (3) instant feedback improves learning. We show how to apply these generalizations via innovations in modern information technology inside, outside, and across university classrooms. We also give concrete examples of these ideas from innovations we have experimented with in our own teaching.

Introduction -- Part I: Perspectives -- Chapter 1. Science -- Chapter 2. Ethics -- Part II: Ethics and Misconduct -- Chapter 3. Plagiarism -- Chapter 4. Fabrication -- Chapter 5. Falsifying -- Part III: Ethics and Trust -- Chapter 6. Confidentiality -- Chapter 7. Science and Society -- Chapter 8. Science and Politics -- Part IV: Forms, Codes and of types Regulations -- Chapter 9. Research Ethics Step by Step -- Appendix -- Indexes.