Search results

Has there been meaningful movement toward open sci-ence practices within the social sciences in recent years? Discussions about changes in practices such as posting data and pre-registering analyses have been marked by controversy—including controversy over the extent to which change has taken place. This study, based on the State of Social Science (3S) Survey, provides the first com-prehensive assessment of awareness of, attitudes towards, perceived norms regarding, and adoption of open science practices within a broadly representative sample of scholars from four major social science disciplines: economics, political science, psychology, and so-ciology. We observe a steep increase in adoption: as of 2017, over 80% of scholars had used at least one such practice, rising from one quarter a decade earlier. Attitudes toward research transpar-ency are on average similar between older and younger scholars, but the pace of change di˙ers by field and methodology. According with theories of normal science and scientific change, the timing of increases in adoption coincides with technological innovations and institutional policies. Patterns are consistent with most scholars underestimating the trend toward open science in their discipline.

"Meaning is everywhere and everybody must interpret. Nobody argued this more persuasively than Clifford Geertz. From Balinese cock fights to sheep raids to theater states, Geertz showed that there is no escape from the sticky webs of meaning that capture our lives. But what exactly is Geertz saying, and should we still listen to him? After all, many argue that his ideas have run out of steam. This book confronts Geertz and his critics, offering surprising answers from various disciplines and identifying for the first time the contours of 'the Geertz Effect.'"--

PurposeThe research technique of shadowing is the most in‐depth type of systematic, direct observation in situ of behaviours within a particular organisational or social setting, and yet, it crucially lacks documentation and critical analysis. The origins of the under‐documenting, coupled with the mutation of the scientific method of shadowing through its adoption by many industries as a means of on‐the‐job training, have led to a misunderstanding of shadowing as a scientific technique. This is problematic at several levels for academics deeply involved in qualitative methodology. The purpose of this paper is to address, in part, this gap in the literature.Design/methodology/approachBy defining shadowing, considering the reasons why shadowing has had little critique from social science scholars and then exploring the problems of it as a research technique, particularly within the current context of ethics regimes, the authors wish to proactively help to avoid unintentional yet delicate fieldwork situations, in which misunderstanding may happen due to the lay use of "shadowing" as a passive (non‐obtrusive) observation.FindingsThe authors argue that the research practice of shadowing implies specific systematic techniques and extensive self‐discipline by the researcher. It also caters for a need in data collection that oversteps traditional observation‐and‐interviewing techniques, by adding a new hermeneutical layer to the information gathered. It becomes an essential tool in the evaluation of public policy initiatives and programmes and in the understanding of not only the mechanics, but of the motivations behind actions and behaviours.Originality/valueThis paper addresses part of a gap in the literature and paves the way for more critical analysis of the dynamics that emerge during the shadowing of a research participant.