Social scientists have long been concerned with inequality, yet the focus has often been on its theoretical and political aspects. This is now starting to change, writes Mike Savage. Thanks to research interventions by scholars, together with attempts to institutionalise cross-disciplinary work, the focus is shifting from normative debates and towards the more technical, empirical and historical problems of inequality.
Over recent years the higher education sector has been encouraged to find different, effective and flexible ways of teaching. This enthusiasm is apparent more than ever before, as the current British Conservative government have produced a white paper on the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). The Teaching Excellence Framework intends to measure and improve the quality of teaching and learning within the higher education sector. With this proposed framework being introduced, universities will have to think of new ways of teaching and learning. This paper examines the pedagogical approach to self-determined learning within the dynamic of the tutor and the learner. In the paper, the authors argue for a fundamental rethink of how students learn in the higher education sector. Moreover, the authors call for a greater emphasis on a self-determined approach to learning and the integration of heutagogy, as this approach challenges the pedagogical approach to teaching and learning.
Background: We are witnessing increasing demand from governments and society for all sciences to have relevant social impact and to show the returns they provide to society. Aims and objectives: This paper reports strategies that promote social impact by Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research projects. Methods: An in-depth analysis of six Social Sciences and Humanities research projects that achieved social impact was carried out to identify those strategies. For each case study, project documents were analysed and qualitative fieldwork was conducted with diverse agents, including researchers, stakeholders and end-users, with a communicative orientation. Findings: The strategies that were identified as contributing to achieving social impact include a clear focus of the project on social impact and the definition of an active strategy for achieving it; a meaningful involvement of stakeholders and end-users throughout the project lifespan, including local organisations, underprivileged end-users, and policy makers who not only are recipients of knowledge generated by the research projects but participate in the co-creation of knowledge; coordination between projects' and stakeholders' activities; and dissemination activities that show useful evidence and are oriented toward creating space for public deliberation with a diverse public. Discussion and conclusions: The strategies identified can enhance the social impact of Social Sciences and Humanities research. Furthermore, gathering related data, such as collaboration with stakeholders, use of projects' findings and the effects of their implementation, could allow researchers to track the social impact of the projects and enhance the evaluation of research impact.
Solution-oriented social science makes solving problems the object of social science, and working on other people's problems becomes the key driver of the problems to be solved. These solutions may be of relevance for everyday citizens or actors working in government, non-profits, or for-profits. Mark Western argues that approaching research in this way would influence how we choose problems, how we build teams and collaborate, and what methods, tools and techniques we employ.
Tackling infectious disease, coping with climate change, boosting growth – the major challenges facing our society and economy demand sharp social science. This 2015 pre-election report from the Campaign for Social Science makes urgent recommendations – on research funding, social science capacity and use of expert advice by government – to maximise social science's contribution through the next Parliament and beyond.
Recently, the need to contribute to the evaluation of the scientific, social, and political impact of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research has become a demand of policy makers and society. The international scientific community has made significant advances that have transformed the impact of evaluation landscape. This article reviews the existing scientific knowledge on evaluation tools and techniques that are applied to assess the scientific impact of SSH research; the changing structure of social and political impacts of SSH research is investigated based on an overarching research question: to what extent do scholars attempt to apply methods, instruments, and approaches that take into account the distinctive features of SSH? The review also includes examples of European Union (EU) projects that demonstrate these impacts. This article culminates in a discussion of the development of the assessment of different impacts and identifies limitations, and areas and topics to explore in the future.
Summary considerations - The current media landscape has the potential to facilitate the rapid development and spread of mis- and disinformation. Social media can also be used to quickly and effectively counter mis- and disinformation. Such positive opportunities must be identified and maximised. - Mis- and disinformation can proliferate when there is a lack, or conversely, an overabundance of information. Their spread can lead to non-compliance with public health measures, perpetuate political conflict and discrimination, and cause negative psychological and social effects. - Social media are global in scope, yet the behaviour of social media users is locally specific. Rapid assessments are needed to fully understand people's favoured channels, most trusted sources, level of literacy and media literacy, and preferred languages and formats for receiving and sharing messages. Such details are essential in order to best communicate with multiple population groups in an emergency. - Public bodies should ensure that the information they share through social media is factual and originates from official sources (such as the WHO, CDC, Ministries of Health etc). They should push information and consistent messaging through multiple channels. A lack of up-to-date information can create a vacuum that is filled by speculation. Reporting inaccurate information should be the responsibility of all � from news agencies to individual users. - People are more inclined to believe and share information when the message is clear and simple, when they trust the source of the message and the channel through which it was conveyed, when the message aligns to their pre-held beliefs, and when the message resonates with them emotionally (e.g., drawing on humour, fear or disgust); text heavy messages do not hold people's attention in the same way as emotional content. People have a greater level of assurance and trust in consistent information which they see featured on multiple sources, whatever those sources may be. The same is also true of mis- and disinformation - If mis- and disinformation are not addressed as they arise, they can proliferate. Identifying and directly addressing false information and rapidly debunking �rumours' can be very effective and create space for reliable and relevant information to circulate. Rumours often reflect underlying anxieties or pre-held social or political positions and beliefs; it is important to address their underlying causes. Communications that are solution-focused, promote a sense of self-efficacy, hope and agency, whilst building on existing resources and strengths can help mitigate fear and foster compliance with public health recommendations. - In rapidly evolving situations such as health emergencies, it is acceptable for official sources to acknowledge that there are unknowns and to reassure the public that they will convey new information when it emerges. This transparent approach challenges people who circulate information that is not supported by evidence. - Trust is also generated by when two-way dialogue is enabled. Accessible channels must allow people to ask questions, the answers to which are reflected in the information being shared. In this way, people are provided with pertinent information and see their realities and concerns acknowledged in broader communication. - Trusted experts and �social influencers' should be used to help communicate information in an engaging way and are often more trusted than official sources. Official bodies should collaborate with social influencers to amplify key messaging. - Rather than censoring information which risks it moving to more private platforms such as WhatsApp, it may be more effective to flag information as inaccurate and flood the same channels with factual information. - Further research is needed to better understand the sources and motivations behind health misinformation and to analyse the effectiveness of measures aimed at stemming its flow and mitigating its harmful effects.
Includes section "Book reviews." ; Papers of the annual meeting of the association issued as a separately paged supplement, 1959-1960. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Mode of access: World Wide Web ; Published by the Southwestern Social Science Association (called 1919-Mar. 1923, Southwestern Political Science Association; Apr. 1923-Mar. 1931, Southwestern Political and Social Science Association)
Summary The environmental humanities call for post-disciplinary approaches to meet the vexing problem of climate change. However, scholars have not scrutinised how management and organisation studies (MOS) could contribute to such an endeavour. This research note explores common surfaces of contact between the natural and social sciences, with the goal of unravelling the legitimate positions to speak from about climate change. The findings suggest that scholars in MOS are exposed to ecological reasoning, which undergirds underdog heroism, disciplinary confusion and a debasement of political subjectivity. As a counter strategy, I suggest that we affirm a 'blue-sky research' approach that would support alternative research paths and a more traditional will to know—to advance 'climate social science'.
This article focuses on the development of soft and hard infrastructures to support a life science ecology in a peripheral European city region. Liverpool City Region has received almost £1.7bn in capital investment through EU Cohesion Policy to redevelop the city region and reinvigorate its economy towards knowledge based industries. The analysis of the city regions life science ecology highlights the uneven development of hard and soft infrastructures. Due to the diversity of firms within the region it has proven difficult to establish soft infrastructure related to scientific knowledge. The outcome has led to soft infrastructures being more business support orientated rather than scientific knowledge based, reducing inter-firm connections on a product or service basis. The evidence shows that not all types of soft infrastructure emerge as an outcome of investment. Hence, policy makers need to provide a clearer narrative on their investments, focusing on fewer core competencies rather than breadth of activities.
Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) raises many cultural, ethical, legal, social, and political issues, yet in the growing area of GGR research, humanities and social sciences (HASS) research is often marginalized, constrained and depoliticised. This global dynamic is illustrated by an analysis of the UK GGR research programme. This dynamic matters for the knowledge produced and for its users. Without HASS contributions, too narrow a range of perspectives, futures and issues will be considered, undermining or overpromising the prospects for the responsible development of GGR (and threatening worse side-effects), and limiting our understanding of why and how policy demands GGR solutions in the first place. In response, we present policy principles for bringing HASS fully into GGR research, organized around three themes: (1) HASS-led GGR research, (2) Opening up GGR futures, and (3) The politics of GGR futures.
The school takes inspiration from the EU H2020 SwafS CoAct (Co-designing Citizen Social Science for Collective Action) project's experiences and partners. It aims to invigorate the academic community around a wide set of Citizen Social Science practices while providing a critical view on their strengths and challenges. The participant will have the opportunity to learn aspects related to the following elements: • Review of transdisciplinary aspects to Citizen Social Science (Open Science, Ethical Research, Digital participation, Evaluation and Policy Impact) • Practical examples of Citizen Social Science practices where groups in a vulnerable situation are acting as Co-Researchers • Portfolio of collaborative participatory research models (interdisciplinary, intersectoral and international) • Practical tools to maximize success and minimize challenges of Citizen Social Science • Development of an international network of peers • Strategies to be inclusive in a Citizen Science project S0: In this session, Citizen Science will be introduced jointly with the current discussions on how social dimension shall be considered and on how academics from the social sciences are currently shaping Citizen Social Science. CoAct vision will also be introduced. CoAct understands Citizen Social Science as participatory research co-designed and directly driven by citizen groups sharing a social concern. It combines equal collaboration between citizen groups (Co-Researchers) that share a social concern, and academic researchers. The session will end up with a summary of the State-of-the-Art CoAct deliverable.
Organized and written with the collaboration of Marie Gulbransen. ; Town and city life in America.--The westward movement and the growth of transportation.--The mechanical conquest of America.--America's march toward democracy.--Americanizing our foreign-born.--Resources, industries and cities.--Industries and trade which bind nations together.--Explorers and settlers westward bound.--Problems of American industry and business.--Problems of American government. ; Mode of access: Internet.
Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) raises many cultural, ethical, legal, social, and political issues, yet in the growing area of GGR research, humanities and social sciences (HASS) research is often marginalized, constrained and depoliticised. This global dynamic is illustrated by an analysis of the UK GGR research programme. This dynamic matters for the knowledge produced and for its users. Without HASS contributions, too narrow a range of perspectives, futures and issues will be considered, undermining or overpromising the prospects for the responsible development of GGR (and threatening worse side-effects), and limiting our understanding of why and how policy demands GGR solutions in the first place. In response, we present policy principles for bringing HASS fully into GGR research, organized around three themes: (1) HASS-led GGR research, (2) Opening up GGR futures, and (3) The politics of GGR futures.
Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) raises many cultural, ethical, legal, social, and political issues, yet in the growing area of GGR research, humanities and social sciences (HASS) research is often marginalized, constrained and depoliticised. This global dynamic is illustrated by an analysis of the UK GGR research programme. This dynamic matters for the knowledge produced and for its users. Without HASS contributions, too narrow a range of perspectives, futures and issues will be considered, undermining or overpromising the prospects for the responsible development of GGR (and threatening worse side-effects), and limiting our understanding of why and how policy demands GGR solutions in the first place. In response, we present policy principles for bringing HASS fully into GGR research, organized around three themes: (1) HASS-led GGR research, (2) Opening up GGR futures, and (3) The politics of GGR futures.
