Recent debates on the meaning and use of science are focused on addressing citizens' needs or concerns of society in different fields. Researchers have developed different methodologies for capturing the relevance of topics to be addressed by research in order to map them. This article proposes a new methodology for identifying the relevance of research goals through collecting citizen's voices on Twitter and Facebook combing two approaches: top down, starting with already defined research goals priorities, and bottom up, departing from the social media. The article presents the results of the application of this methodology through the research goals of Sustainable Development Goals to identify their relevance and if there are some topics not covered by them. Thus, researchers could integrate this methodology in their daily work and be more in line with the needs expressed by citizens in social media.
National audience ; Aujourd'hui comme hier, trop souvent les questions comme les réponses, provoquées par la montée des tensions sociales ou des problèmes de marginalité, par celle des phénomènes de violence ou de délinquance sont construites comme s'il s'agissait de manifestations qu'il serait possible d'isoler de la scène sociale, politique ou économique et de traiter en tant que phénomène autonome.
National audience ; Aujourd'hui comme hier, trop souvent les questions comme les réponses, provoquées par la montée des tensions sociales ou des problèmes de marginalité, par celle des phénomènes de violence ou de délinquance sont construites comme s'il s'agissait de manifestations qu'il serait possible d'isoler de la scène sociale, politique ou économique et de traiter en tant que phénomène autonome.
National audience ; Aujourd'hui comme hier, trop souvent les questions comme les réponses, provoquées par la montée des tensions sociales ou des problèmes de marginalité, par celle des phénomènes de violence ou de délinquance sont construites comme s'il s'agissait de manifestations qu'il serait possible d'isoler de la scène sociale, politique ou économique et de traiter en tant que phénomène autonome.
<p>In contemporary society, the full-fledged impact of modernisation and globalisation which has given the free movement of people, goods and money across the countries of the world can be witnessed. This has also opened the economic opportunities among the individuals and communities in the society, which has become a new way of life. Society has changed over the years and activities of the people have also undergone social change. Even the trend of taking drugs has changed with change in society. Traditionally used drugs have been replaced by modern synthetic drugs. The proliferation of pharmaceutical industries, which manufactures narcotic drugs, has, directly and indirectly, encouraged the use and abuse of drugs due to easy access in the market. The epidemic of illicit drug users in the global society has increased significantly and simultaneously related crimes in society. </p><p>Drug abuse is global phenomena. A drug is a biological substance, synthetic or natural, which is taken primarily for non-dietary needs, and it is a substance, which affects the functioning of the mind and body or both. Globally, according to UNODC estimate, in 2009, between 149 and 272 million people, or 3.3% to 6.1% of the population aged 15-64, had used illicit substance once in the previous year. Cannabis and ATS (Amphetamine-type stimulants) are two important drugs which are commonly used worldwide. Within Asia, ATS ranks as the main drug of abuse in Thailand, Japan, Republic of Korea and the Philippines, and also China, Myanmar and Indonesia are in the second rank (UNODC, 2004). Heroin, cocaine and other drugs kill around 0.2 million people each year and also causes health problems with incurable diseases. The European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) defines the problem of drug use as, "injecting drug use or long duration regular use of opium, cocaine and amphetamines". World Health Organisation (WHO), defines drug addiction as a 'disease,' and the American Psychiatric Association, define drug abuse as the 'illicit consumption of any naturally occurring of pharmaceutical substance for the purpose of changing the way, in which a person feels, thinks or behaves, without understanding or taking into consideration the damaging physical and mental side-effects that are caused.'</p>
AbstractSex on college campuses has fascinated scholars, reporters, and the public since the advent of coeducational higher education in the middle of the nineteenth century. But the emergence of rape on campus as a public problem is relatively recent. This article reveals the changing social constructions of campus rape as a public problem through a detailed examination of newspaper reporting on this issue as it unfolded at Columbia University and Barnard College between 1955 and 1990. Adapting Joseph R. Gusfield's classic formulation of public problem construction, we show the ways police and other judicial and law enforcement authorities, feminists, university faculty, student groups, university administrators, and health professionals and institutions have struggled over ownership of how the problem should be defined and described, attribution of responsibility for addressing the problem, and prescriptions for what is to be done. Our findings show how beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the simultaneous swelling of the women's liberation movement and the exponential integration of women into previously male-dominated institutions of higher education and medicine catalyzed the creation of new kinds of knowledge, institutions, and expertise to address rape and sexual violence more broadly on college campuses. New actors—feminists and health professionals—layered frames of gender and health over those of crime and punishment to fundamentally transform how we understand rape on campus, and beyond.
ObjectiveTo study the association between social disorganization and youth violence rates in rural communities.MethodWe employed rural Missouri counties (N = 106) as units of analysis, measured serious violent victimization data via hospital records, and the same measures of social disorganization as Osgood and Chambers (2000). Controlling for spatial autocorrelation, the negative binomial estimator was used to estimate the effects of social disorganization on youth violence rates.ResultsUnlike Osgood and Chambers, we found only one of five social disorganization measures, the proportion of female‐headed households, to be associated with rural youth violent victimization rates.ConclusionAlthough most research on social disorganization theory has been undertaken on urban areas, a highly cited Osgood and Chambers (2000) study appeared to extend the generalizeability of social disorganization as an explanation of the distribution of youth violence to rural areas. Our results suggest otherwise. We provide several methodological and theoretical reasons why it may be too early to draw strong conclusions about the generalizeability of social disorganization to crime rates in rural communities.
Objectives. Most researchers who use survey data must grapple with the problem of how best to handle missing information. This article illustrates multiple imputation, a technique for estimating missing values in a multivariate setting.Methods. I use multiple imputation to estimate missing income data and update a recent study that examines the influence of parents' standard of living on subjective well‐being. Using data from the 1998 General Social Survey, two ordered probit models are estimated: one using complete cases only, and the other replacing missing income data with multiple imputation estimates.Results. The analysis produces two major findings: (1) parents' standard of living is more important than suggested by the complete cases model, and (2) using multiple imputation can help reduce standard errors.Conclusions. Multiple imputation allows a researcher to use more of the available data, thereby reducing biases that may occur when observations with missing data are simply deleted.
Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund -- Introduction -- The Actuality of Philosophy and the Period of Exile in the United States -- The Return to Frankfurt and the Late Works -- The Question of Justice -- The Good Life and the Advocacy for the Nonidentical -- Conclusion: Reception -- References -- Arendt, Hannah -- Introduction -- Law and Politics: Arendt´s Constitutionalism -- The Problem of Human Rights -- Law and Evil: Adolf Eichmann on Trial -- Conclusion -- References -- Cardozo, Benjamin -- Introduction -- Legal Wisdom -- The Concept of Law and the Value of Legal Certainty -- The Workings of the Legal Process -- The Theory of Legal Decision-Making as Legal Philosophy -- Conclusion -- References -- Croce, Benedetto -- Introduction -- The Object and History of the Philosophy of Law -- The Concept of Law -- Juridical Actions and Laws -- The Double Aspect of the Practical Problem -- References -- Dewey, John -- Introduction -- Pragmatism -- Critique of Natural Law -- Judicial Decision-Making -- Social Theory of Law -- Conclusion -- References -- Durkheim, Emile -- Introduction -- Intellectual Sketch -- Law as Social Fact -- Legal Evolution and Societal Complexity -- Contract: Evolution and Social Functions -- Crime and Ritual Punishment -- Conclusion -- References -- Dworkin, Ronald -- Introduction -- Legal Disagreement -- Constructive Interpretation -- Law as Integrity -- Conclusion -- References -- Ehrlich, Eugen -- Introduction -- Biography -- The Controversy with Hans Kelsen on the Nature of the Legal Science -- Ehrlich´s Influence on the Free Law Movement -- Ehrlich´s Political Thought -- The Distinction Between State and Law According to Ehrlich -- Society as a Grouping of Associations and the Role of Legal Norms -- The Concept of Living Law -- Ehrlich, Constitution and Pluralism -- Conclusion -- References.
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
