Suchergebnisse

This work was developed for graduate students, professors, and others involved in research in the social sciences. This practical work emphasizes that science is more than an organized body of knowledge. It is a method of reasoned thinking that manages the research process and the reporting of reliable knowledge. The work goes through the steps of identifying and stating a problem, formulating and stating an hypothesis, developing and conducting analysis, interpreting results, and drawing conclusions

chapter Introduction -- chapter 1 Inquiring into Communication in Science -- chapter 2 From Face-to-Face to Depersonalized Transactions in Science -- chapter 3 Scientific Neighborhoods and Beyond: On Conflicts of Interest -- chapter 4 Replicating Best Practices in Science: Can We Do It? -- chapter 5 To Change or Not to Change: A Case Study -- chapter 6 Interacting with the Generalized Other: On Reading in Science -- chapter 7 Communicating with Students: On Grade Inflation.

A discussion of 2 areas in the field of mass COMM that have been neglected: (1) 'the atomistic conception of audiences & the resulting lack of differentiation between types of res unit,' & (2) 'the preponderance of US studies & the attendant neglect of European theorizing.' Re (1) it is noted that the atomistic conception of the COMM audience has arisen & persisted because of: (A) the soc sci approach to the subject is primarily that of differential psychol; (B) mass COMM & audience res have been imbedded in market res, which is also primarily concerned with the individual; (C) mass COMM res coincides to a great extent with PO res, which has evolved largely in connection with predicting election results, & therefore has counted individual votes with equal weights; &, (D) 'the soc sci's have come to find the individual interview or CI, or test, their most natural & most easily applicable tool.' Thus, while 'res reports abound with evidence that mass COMM have been absorbed into the soc life of local groups,' the conception is still being used; attempts to take the group into account still consider the individual as the res & sampling unit. It is suggested, to overcome this, that S's should be encouraged to give their impressions about prevailing group feelings & to discuss their opinions publicly before responding privately. In addition 'a good deal could be learned from the way impressionistic judgements about audience behavior used to be made by many commercial stage experts.' Re (2), it is noted that the neglect of European theorizing has resulted in 'cases of new concepts & theories being constructed apparently without knowledge of the fact that comparable concepts & theories, along with their empirical applications, were already in existence, from which considerable profit might have been gained.' 2 such cases are outlined re the work of K. Baschwitz; these pertain to the 2-step flow hypothesis & the theory of cognitive dissonance. I. Taviss.

This essay considers social science as a finite province of meaning. It is argued that teasing out common-sense meanings from social scientific conceptions is difficult because the meanings of scientific concepts are often veiled in life-worldly taken-for-grantedness. If social scientists have successfully created a scientific province of meaning, attempts to communicate findings outside of this reduced sphere of science should be somewhat problematic.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach – Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings – As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications – The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH.Originality/value – The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH. ; This work is conducted within the framework of the COST action "European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities" (ENRESSH, CA15137, enressh.eu). Tim Engels thanks the Flemish Government for its financial support to the Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM).

For a sizeable minority of social scientists, communication with 3 audiences other than their own colleagues is important; these audiences are: (1) the public at large, (2) policy-makers, & (3) potential sponsors of research. There are 5 different, but interrelated kinds of information which social scientists may transmit to these 3 groups: (A) general statements about research that needs to be done or proposals for specific studies from individual researchers; (B) research currently underway, but not yet complete; (C) findings of a particular study; (D) what is known about a given area of the social sciences; & (E) what a particular study means in policy terms. Although social sciences are clearly relevant to a large proportion of what is discussed in the media, it is rare for social scientists to be asked by the media for an opinion of interest. However, interest in the social sciences by the media has grown significantly. Between policy-makers & the social scientists, education is needed at both ends of the "chain of communication." Organizations such as the Social Science Research Council & the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences have helped in bridging the gap between academia & the federal government. Communication is central to the problem of matching social scientists with sponsors of their research, public or private. Not enough money is available to support all the potential projects of social science. The printed media is still the most common means of communication within the social science community & in its relations to society. 1 Table. R. Lent.

A survey of major models used in past human thought is presented. Models serve the following functions by which their performance value may be judged: organizing, heuristic, predictive, mensurative. In a discussion of genuine vs. pseudomodels, the author states a problem posed by the fact that those who are best equipped to construct models frequently know least about social science. All analytic work in the social sciences is tied to judgements of relevance, evaluating the realism of assumptions. Since communication and control are decision processes in an organization, if the pathways by which information is communicated and by which it is applied to the behavior of the organization are mapped, the essential elements of the organization will be understood. Cybernetics, with its concepts of formal and informal communication channels, memory storage and feedback, primary information and secondary symbols, and steering, can be applied to the study of an organization. The author concludes with a concept of the characteristics of growth by which an organization may be evaluated: (1) increase in openness; (2) efficiency with which information is transmitted: (3) ability to change the environs of the organization in accordance with its projected inner policies and needs; and (4) increase in learning capacity. R. S. Halpern.

The interests of the communications researcher often bring him onto common ground with other social scientists. The long-range, cumulative effects of the mass media are of common concern, as is the study of the communicator himself. Com munications research has some familiar problems of method, and also some techniques such as content analysis that could be redirected to provide a new way for studying social and selective aspects of perception. Multidisciplinary team research may not live up to its billings, but interdisciplinary appreciation is always worth seeking. The author is Director of the Research Division of the University of Minnesota's School of Journalism; this article is based on a talk he gave at the University of Oregon in March 1960.