Cutting NSF Is Like Liquidating Your Finest Investment
Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using […]
Find out more about the 16th Annual AERA Brown Lecture in Education Research! This year’s event will feature eminent sociologist Dr. Prudence L. Carter
The National Science Foundation, the largest government funder of basic social and behavioral research in the United States, is changing how it “positions” some of its research programs in those fields. While the changes are meant to better highlight the value of social science, not everyone is pleased by the changes.
Marilyn Whitman and Ashley Mandeville discuss their recent paper on the work spouse phenomenon. It appears in the Journal of Management Inquiry.
UPDATED: The U.S. Senate committee that oversees funding for the National Science Foundation, and with that most of the federal money spent on basic social and behavioral science research, today approved a 2020 budget that increases NSF spending by $242 million compared to the current fiscal year. The bill must still pass the full Senate, and be reconciled with a more generous House version.
This Tuesday at 9 a.m., the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will be hosting a national symposium in response to the 200-page report: Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. The symposium will feature discussions on actions taken or contemplated in response to the report’s findings. Learn more or find out how to watch live.
Individuals find it harder to cover conference costs – and departments or research groups have fewer resources to support them. It is not hard to see why there is a sense of grievance. On the other hand, it is not so easy to see what can be done.
Transcribing can be a pain, and although recent progress in speech recognition software has helped, it remains a challenge. Speech recognition programs, do, however, raise ethical/consent issues: what if person-identifiable interview data is transcribed or read by someone who was not given the consent to do so? Furthermore, some conversational elements aren’t transcribed well by pattern recognition programs.
In the first post from a series of bulletins on public data that social and behavioral scientists might be interested in, Gary Price links to an analysis from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.