Search results

The Academy of Social Sciences has promoted discussion among its member learned societies in order to explore the possibility of defining common elements among the various disciplines’ approaches to research ethics. This chapter provides a context for and an overview of principles developed by the Academy’s Working Group at the end of a series of symposia to encourage working towards common principles for social science research ethics.

This chapter offers an anthropological commentary on the work of the Academy of Social Sciences’ Research Ethics Group and the process through which five generic ethical principles for social science research was created. I take an anthropological approach to the subject and, following the structure of Macdonald’s essay Making Research Ethics (2010), I position myself in relation to the process. I discuss various features of the REGs work including the enduring influence of medicine and biomedical research ethics on the ethics and ethics governance of social science research; the absence of philosophers and applied ethicists and their incompatibility with the kind of endeavour pursued by the Research Ethics group; and the antipathy many felt towards the creation of a common code resulting in a preference for generic principles. This chapter offers insight into the work of the Research Ethics Group and the creation of the five ethical principles for social science research, subsequently adopted by the Academy of Social Sciences.

This chapter considers the current standards that exist for the conduct of research and whether these standards are being met. Issues of scope and terminology are discussed and debated. Also considered are the reasons and benefits to the Academy of Social Sciences and other professional and disciplinary bodies by being involved in developing generic ethics principles in social science research.

“The world needs science, science needs women” is the message given by UNESCO in the program for the development of women in science” (UNESCO, 2017). In Vietnam, women’s participation and achievements in scientific research is considered a great and important resource for industrialization and modernization. Even so, are there gender differences in scientific achievement in the social science research institutes in Vietnam? What factors influence the scientific achievement of female social researchers? The answers will be based on data from a 2017 survey with a sample of 756 researchers, of which 77.6% were female. The survey was conducted by the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, a leading, ministry-level national center for the social sciences in Vietnam. This chapter analyzed the scientific achievements of researchers through their position as principal investigators of research projects and their publications, and factors that may impact this. Bivariate and multivariate analyses of factors that may affect the scientific achievement of researchers found that gender differences in academic achievement in the social sciences in Vietnam was still prevalent. Female researchers’ scientific achievements were lower than those of their male counterparts. The contribution to science of Vietnamese female researchers was limited by many different factors; the most important were the academic rank of the researchers and gender stereotype that considered housework the responsibility of women.

A growing tendency towards interdisciplinary and international social science research has resulted in the need for codes of ethics and guidelines that cross disciplinary and national boundaries. One set of such documents was developed by the RESPECT project, which produced Europe-wide professional and ethical guidelines for social sciences. This chapter builds on a semi-structured interview conducted with the Principal Investigator of the RESPECT project. Her thoughts are contextualised within the broader discussions of ethics and professional standards codes and guidelines as identified by other scholars in the field. Drawing on an experience-based account, the chapter offers guidance in overcoming some of the common concerns when developing international, interdisciplinary ethics codes and guidelines for social science research.

The quest for a set of generic ethics principles remains a challenge, not least because the generation of new sets seems to be continuing unabated. This chapter has been developed from the first of a series of stimulus papers, delivered in symposia, organised as part of the Academy of Social Sciences’ initiative to promote discussion between learned societies aiming for a consensus on what might comprise generic ethics principles in social research.

The purpose of this paper is to present a summary report of the 35th Social Science Congress deliberations held in December 2011 at MGAHV, Wardha, India.

The report includes selected presentations and provides a review of some of the events of the ISSA's 35th Social Science Congress. The author's observation/participation and discussion on vital areas, namely, peaceful co‐existence and just world, created an insight to prepare this report.

The Indian Academy of Social Science (ISSA) was established on August 15, 1974 at Allahabad, with the vision to discover, develop and disseminate the science of Nature‐Humans‐Society with a view to enable people of India to enjoy higher quality of material, social and cultural life while living in peace and harmony with nature. Today corruption has taken center stage in India and at this juncture the discussion on the theme is most appropriate to evolve a blueprint for peaceful co‐existence and a just world. The congress programs were designed to help participants tackle current issues and prepare them for future challenges. The theme generated a lot of discussion on what is a just world and what is the right pathway towards working for peaceful co‐existence.

The 35th Social Science congress report will be of interest to every member of the society on a global scale to understand the challenges, issues, and opportunities for peaceful co‐existence with special reference to poor and disadvantaged populations.