As a political scientist, I find it curious that my discipline has been singled out as being particularly wasteful of federal research dollars. How did we join welfare queens and spotted owls as convenient punching bags, things that must not be aided by taxpayer money during lean times?
We study social science because social phenomena affect people’s lives in profound ways. If you want to start with Cantor’s focus—physical illness and death—then social phenomena are tremendously important.
Everyone has experience being human, and so findings in social science coincide with something that we have either experienced or can imagine experiencing. The result is that social science all too often seems like common sense.
Last week we heard the sad news that Professor Elinor Ostrom has died. Her profound contributions to scholarship have been told often since she became the first woman and the first political scientist ever to receive the Nobel Prize for Economics.
On May 9, the House of Representatives adopted a provision that would preclude the National Science Foundation (NSF) from supporting research in the field of political science.
Recently, the US House of Representatives passed off an amendment offered by Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would prohibit funding for the Political Science Program with the National Science Foundation. If enacted into law, this amendment would set an extraordinary and disturbing precedent in which Congress chooses which scientific disciplines should be funded and not funded within the NSF’s research portfolio.
Across the world in the media, in policy, government discussions, and in our daily lives, there is evidence of social science at work. Whether it’s analysis of a cultural phenomenon like crime, or a major international concern such how climate change leads to changing lifestyles or inequality, social scientists help us understand cultures and behaviours.
There has been a good deal of debate across the web this week following the publication of a report by United States […]
“We are, as a species, addicted to story,” says English professor Jonathan Gottschall in his book, The Storytelling Animal. “Even when the […] Tom Burns, whose combination of play — and plays – with teaching in higher education added a light, collaborative and engaging model […] 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. David Canter reveals how he discovered Microsoft Copilot acted like a lazy student, inventing responses with apparent confidence that were blatantly wrong. […] “We are, as a species, addicted to story,” says English professor Jonathan Gottschall in his book, The Storytelling Animal. “Even when the […] The interactional skill of large language models enables them to carry out qualitative research interviews at speed and scale. Demonstrating the ability of these new techniques in a range of qualitative enquiries, Friedrich Geiecke and Xavier Jaravel, present a new open source platform to support this new form of qualitative research.
EXPLORE
Impact
Canada’s Storytellers Challenge Seeks Compelling Narratives About Student Research
READ MORE
Tom Burns, 1959-2024: A Pioneer in Learning Development
READ MORE
Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures
READ MORE
Innovation
Beware! AI Can Lie.
READ MORE
Canada’s Storytellers Challenge Seeks Compelling Narratives About Student Research
READ MORE
Our Open-Source Tool Allows AI-Assisted Qualitative Research at Scale
READ MORE
