Search results

In this chapter I explore the issues of whose interest and rights are at stake when social scientists conduct their research. I caution that the ethical considerations, values and principles that pertain to the social sciences are not always the same as those which rightly underpin the biomedical sciences and so not all should be imported. In particular I consider the dangers of applying a ‘participant protection model’ to social science research. I suggest that the social sciences must be regulated through a framework that understands and enables these differences rather than misconstrues and hinders good social science research.

Much research in the social sciences uses literature as its raw material. Older, non‐periodical material and long runs of periodicals are important; this is confirmed by citation analysis, which also indicates considerable use of a limited number of references, few of them in languages other than English. Problems and topics in the social sciences are less clearly defined than in the natural sciences; this and the fact that much ‘fringe’ material is necessary for social science research makes comprehensive literature provision almost impossible, and cuts down the efficacy of bibliographies and abstracts. The suggestion for a national library for the social sciences is discussed; the differences in use of and demand for the literature between the natural and social sciences are pointed out and the case put forward for basing expansion on existing institutions, with improved provision in the libraries of individual universities, where much of the research is based.

New technologies are posing new challenges to social science. Their very novelty also challenges the established methods that social research institutions have used to define their priorities. The UK’s Economic and Social research Council (ESRC) confronted these challenges, in part, by commissioning a futures study. It engaged the Institute for Alternative Futures (IAF) and the Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition (CRIC), to develop quickly a process for informing the choice of social science research priorities related to genomics. Four major reports were developed as background inputs to a scenario workshop process. As well as outlining a set of scenarios for the development of the genomics field, reports covered genomic applications, forecasts for drivers shaping genomics, and how the ESRC’s “thematic priorities” might relate to developments in genomics in the coming years. With this input and using advanced “groupware”, the scenario workshop identified five priority areas focused on how research should be conducted and 11 priority topics for what research is needed.

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.

This chapter considers the difficulties faced when trying to develop an ethics framework for all social sciences because of the variety of disciplinary approaches and traditions involved. In recognition of the need for issues of research governance to operate separately from researchers and ethics committees the former Social Science committee of Science Europe organised a workshop in June 2015 with representatives of the Member Organisations to assess the state of art and to present ideas on how to move this issue forward. The key issues discussed and the recommendations resulting from this workshop are explored in this chapter.

This chapter informs current research and practice in organization development and change (ODC) with an actionable knowledge of the social science philosophies. It adds value to the scholarship of ODC by charting the progression of philosophies of social science, by showing how researchers in ODC structure their inquiry based on the inherent philosophical dimensions, and by offering useful and actionable knowledge for research and practice. The aim of the chapter is to reflect on the practice of ODC as a social science and to consolidate its social science philosophies so to provide solid philosophical and methodological foundations for the field.

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.

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.