The UK’s referendum on remaining in the European Union or leaving it generated an avalanche of campaign information, including hundreds of interventions by social scientists. David Walker casts a sceptical eye over the experience, asking whether the wafer-thin majority for Leave signals a failure of social scientists input.
The result of the second UK referendum on membership of the European Union appeared immediately as a tragedy, says Robert Dingwall. It has rapidly degenerated into a farce, which may yet have tragic consequences.
Public conversations about Britain’s EU membership could have involved wide-ranging discussions of British and European politics, economics and society, argues our Daniel Nehring. They did not. Instead, they were dominated by oversimplifications, stereotypes and lies.
in the wake of the leavers winning the Brexit vote, the British Academy of Social Sciences predicts uncertainty for the social science community, ‘with implications for research funding, international collaboration, freedom of movement, and capacity building.’
Imagine a crystal ball that could provide us with graphs of levels of house prices, migration, the value of the pound, or the number of EU laws, from now into the far future, suggests Nick Chater about the results of the Brexit vote. He suspects this crystal ball would not help many voters come to any firm conclusions.
A collection of academic articles from three journals published by SAGE examine the questions whirling around the Brexit vote. As Angus Armstrong and Jonathan Portes say, ‘The phony war is over!’
A briefing from the Academy of Social Sciences concludes that ‘given the available evidence, compared to other sciences in the UK and to social scientists in other EU member states, over the past two decades UK social scientists may have benefitted to a greater extent from the EU funding and capacity building opportunities provided by EU programmes.’
German-born Daniel Nehring insists that the upcoming Brexit vote is founded less on reason and more on xenophobia, and argues that the toxic atmosphere surrounding the vote is already doing harm to Britain’s fabled academic enterprise.
The creation of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) has led to a heated debate on the balance between peer review and evaluative metrics in research assessment regimes. Luciana Balboa, Elizabeth Gadd, Eva Mendez, Janne Pölönen, Karen Stroobants, Erzsebet Toth Cithra and the CoARA Steering Board address these arguments and state CoARA’s commitment to finding ways in which peer review and bibliometrics can be used together responsibly. Psychologists Jonathan St. B. T. Evans and Keith E. Stanovich have a history of publishing important research papers that resonate for years. Whether you’re in a research leadership position, working in research development, or a researcher embarking on their project, creating a culture of […] Title of course: Space/Power/Species What prompted the idea for the course? A few years ago, I came across the architect Joyce Hwang’s […] The slow, relentless creep of computing is currently in overdrive with powerful artificial intelligence tools impacting every aspect of our lives. What […] Philosophy has been instrumental to AI since its inception, and should still be an important contributor as artificial intelligence evolves..
EXPLORE
Impact
Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures
READ MORE
Paper to Advance Debate on Dual-Process Theories Genuinely Advanced Debate
READ MORE
Webinar: Fundamentals of Research Impact
READ MORE
Innovation
This Anthropology Course Looks at Built Environment From Animal Perspective
READ MORE
2024 Henry and Bryna David Lecture: K-12 Education in the Age of AI
READ MORE
Philosophy Has Been – and Should Be – Integral to AI
READ MORE
