Editor’s Comments

The USDA Forest Service has had a longstanding presence in utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development activities. The magnitude and diversity of these activities have changed as the questions and the people asking them have changed over the past century. These changes challenge the social science and utilization research community to develop this collective research agenda for utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development activities conducted by the Forest Service. It sets the context for the utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development activities in the Forest Service. It deals with the need to balance knowledge creation with the constantly changing demand for information that guides various land management decisions and shapes policymaker perceptions in various environmental debates. The research agenda is built around six common themes that will help us create a larger pool of experience from which we can form judgments relative to outcomes and develop tools that can be used to solve a variety of problems. It assumes that the worth of utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development activities will be judged by our ability to create lasting solutions that alter outcomes. Finally, creating and implementing such a research agenda depends on leaders who can advocate for problem selection that recognizes the full integrated nature of contemporary questions, who can synchronize research oriented toward major questions with knowledge creation, and who can serve as defenders of social science research against ideological attacks by emphasizing the true nature of questions and the importance of taking integrative approaches.

This last chapter provides an outline of the most important social research ethics principles and values that should be considered by social science researchers and research ethics committees (RECs) who review social science research projects. The principle framework of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) is primarily used to organise the relevant ethics principles and considerations. The following ten principles are considered: (1) Respect for human dignity; (2) Beneficence and non-maleficence; (3) Autonomy and informed consent; (4) Vulnerability; (5) Privacy, anonymity and confidentiality; (6) Equality, justice and equity; (7) Non-discrimination and non-stigmatisation; (8) Respect for cultural diversity and pluralism; (9) Social responsibility and integrity; and (10) Benefit sharing. Lastly, the most important and relevant ethics review questions for each of the principles and values that should be posed by social science RECs during ethics reviews and deliberations are indicated.

BackgroundThe level of funding provides a good proxy for the level of commitment or prioritisation given to a particular issue. While the need for research relevant to social, economic, cultural and behavioural aspects of neglected tropical diseases (NTD) control has been acknowledged, there is limited data on the level of funding that supports NTD social science research.MethodA case study was carried out in which the spending of a major independent funder, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) - was analysed. A total of 67 projects funded between October 1998 and November 2008 were identified from the BMGF database. With the help of keywords within the titles of 67 grantees, they were categorised as social science or non-social science research based on available definition of social science. A descriptive analysis was conducted.ResultsOf 67 projects analysed, 26 projects (39%) were social science related while 41 projects (61%) were basic science or other translational research including drug development. A total of US$ 697 million was spent to fund the projects, of which 35% ((US$ 241 million) went to social science research. Although the level of funding for social science research has generally been lower than that for non-social science research over 10 year period, social science research attracted more funding in 2004 and 2008.ConclusionThe evidence presented in this case study indicates that funding on NTD social science research compared to basic and translational research is not as low as it is perceived to be. However, as there is the acute need for improved delivery and utilisation of current NTD drugs/technologies, informed by research from social science approaches, funding priorities need to reflect the need to invest significantly more in NTD social science research.

Social science research in malaria prevention, management and control in the last two decades: An overview

Purpose This paper seeks to understand the strategic behaviour of researchers when producing knowledge in two scientific fields – nanotechnology and social sciences. Design/methodology/approach The author conducted semi-structured interviews with 43 researchers to analyse the needs for strategic interdependence (resource-sharing) and for organisational autonomy (decision-making) in knowledge production. When aligned, these two concepts form three modes of behaviour: mode1, mode2 and mode3. Findings The empirical study results show that, besides well-studied differences in various publications, there are large behaviour differences between social science and nanotechnology researchers. While nanotechnology researchers’ behaviours are mostly in mode3 (sharing resources; highly autonomous), social science researchers’ behaviours tend to be in mode1 (highly autonomous; no need to share resources). Practical implications This study delivers an understanding of the differences in the strategic behaviours of researchers in different scientific fields. The author proposes managerial interventions for research managers – university and research group leaders. Originality/value While most studies that compare scientific fields look at knowledge production outcomes, the author analyses conditions that differentiate these outcomes. To this end, the author compares individual researchers’ behaviours in different fields by analysing the need for collaboration and the need for autonomy.

The study is an attempt to explain why Public Relations strategy is an effective avenue to tackle electoral malfeasance in Nigeria. The Nigerian Presidential Campaign of 2015 election with specific reference to the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) candidate presented a ready case study for an analysis. The paper is a public relations analysis aimed at identifying public relations strategy adopted by the PDP’s presidential campaign team and evaluate success and failure including factors responsible for it in the 2015 election. The conceptual framework adopted is SWOT analysis which forms the background for the public relations strategy and method adopted is Analysis, i.e. in-depth study of the Public Relations Strategy. The paper identified that PDP relied on SWOT analysis model instead of detailed social scientific empirical research. The PDP presidential campaign failure arose from over-reliance on strengths and opportunities which resulted to a bunker mentality and dependence on electoral malfeasance. The paper recommends that politicians and political parties rely on experts in social scientific empirical research to direct campaign public relations strategy to avoid reliance on electoral malfeasance among others. The paper demonstrates the weakness and problems arising from sole dependence on SWOT analysis. It is a subjective and depends on individual interpretation. It highlights the need for Nigerian politicians and political parties to rely more on social scientific empirical research to direct public relations strategy in electoral campaign. This paper demonstrates the need for a social scientific research, electoral campaign driven to combat electoral malfeasance in Nigeria.

Use of dimensional analysis in social science research

The Open Research Area (ORA) for Social Sciences is an international initiative that provides social science research funding and support. It was founded in 2010 by members of the Bonn Group and based on agreement by European social science funding bodies The Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), France, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Germany, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UK, and the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), the Netherlands. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Canada, later joined, as well as the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) as an associate member. ORA facilitates collaborative social sciences research by bringing together researchers from participating countries. Researchers from the partner countries who fulfil the eligibility criteria of their national funding organisation apply to the ORA office handling the year's applications and Japanese researchers submit their applications to JSPS Tokyo. ORA accepts applications from all areas of the social sciences and there is a key focus on supporting young researchers at the beginning of their careers, helping them to extend the reach of their work and network on an international scale. Ultimately, ORA exists to drive forward high-quality research and strengthen international collaboration in social sciences research. So far, five rounds of ORA have been successfully completed, with more than 60 international collaborative proposals funded across diverse social sciences fields, including political science, economics, empirical social science, psychology, geography, urban planning and education science.

The Open Research Area (ORA) for Social Sciences is an international initiative that provides social science research funding and support. It was founded in 2010 by members of the Bonn Group and based on agreement by European social science funding bodies The Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), France, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Germany, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UK, and the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), the Netherlands. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Canada, later joined, as well as the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) as an associate member. ORA facilitates collaborative social sciences research by bringing together researchers from participating countries. Researchers from the partner countries who fulfil the eligibility criteria of their national funding organisation apply to the ORA office handling the year's applications and Japanese researchers submit their applications to JSPS Tokyo. ORA accepts applications from all areas of the social sciences and there is a key focus on supporting young researchers at the beginning of their careers, helping them to extend the reach of their work and network on an international scale. Ultimately, ORA exists to drive forward high-quality research and strengthen international collaboration in social sciences research. So far, five rounds of ORA have been successfully completed, with more than 60 international collaborative proposals funded across diverse social sciences fields, including political science, economics, empirical social science, psychology, geography, urban planning and education science.

BackgroundThere are strong arguments for social science and interdisciplinary research in the neglected tropical diseases. These diseases represent a rich and dynamic interplay between vector, host, and pathogen which occurs within social, physical and biological contexts. The overwhelming sense, however, is that neglected tropical diseases research is a biomedical endeavour largely excluding the social sciences. The purpose of this review is to provide a baseline for discussing the quantum and nature of the science that is being conducted, and the extent to which the social sciences are a part of that.MethodsA bibliographic analysis was conducted of neglected tropical diseases related research papers published over the past 10 years in biomedical and social sciences. The analysis had textual and bibliometric facets, and focussed on chikungunya, dengue, visceral leishmaniasis, and onchocerciasis.ResultsThere is substantial variation in the number of publications associated with each disease. The proportion of the research that is social science based appears remarkably consistent (<4%). A textual analysis, however, reveals a degree of misclassification by the abstracting service where a surprising proportion of the "social sciences" research was pure clinical research. Much of the social sciences research also tends to be "hand maiden" research focused on the implementation of biomedical solutions.ConclusionThere is little evidence that scientists pay any attention to the complex social, cultural, biological, and environmental dynamic involved in human pathogenesis. There is little investigator driven social science and a poor presence of interdisciplinary science. The research needs more sophisticated funders and priority setters who are not beguiled by uncritical biomedical promises.

Programs within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have recently taken steps to enhance social science contributions to health research. A June 2000 conference convened by the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research highlighted the role of the social sciences in health research and developed an agenda for advancing such research. The conference and agenda underscored the importance of research on basic social scientific concepts and constructs, basic social science research on the etiology of health and illness, and the application of basic social science constructs in health services, treatment, and prevention research. Recent activities at NIH suggest a growing commitment to social science research and its integration into interdisciplinary multilevel studies of health.

Performance Indicators for the Advancement of Malaysian Research with Focus on Social Science and Humanities

This paper aims to provide researchers and practitioners with an overview of how organisation behaviour research (OBR) helps to understand and resolve patient safety problems in health care. The paper describes psychological, sociological and other social science theories and research which help to understand the causes of patient safety problems, how to implement change effectively and how to create an organisational culture of safety. Social science perspectives and organisational behaviour research are beginning to show why improvements in patient safety are slow, and how to make lasting and effective change. Social sciences and OBR have already helped make healthcare safer, but could make a greater contribution. Progress could be faster with greater awareness of the findings of this research and understanding of social science research paradigms. Better implementation and safer care could result from providing implementers and decision makers with more knowledge and access to social science research. More useful social science research could be developed by research funders and proposal reviewers gaining a greater understanding of social science methods and potential, and by including this research in a field made up largely of traditional experimental medical research methods. This paper provides an overview of the scientific and practical contributions of social sciences to patient safety and shows where future studies could assist understanding of current challenges and speed implementation of change.

Reproducibility of research is critical for the healthy growth and accumulation of reliable knowledge, and simulation-based research is no exception. However, studies show many simulation-based studies in the social sciences are not reproducible. Better standards for documenting simulation models and reporting results are needed to enhance the reproducibility of simulation-based research in the social sciences. We provide an initial set of Reporting Guidelines for Simulation-based Research (RGSR) in the social sciences, with a focus on common scenarios in system dynamics research. We discuss these guidelines separately for reporting models, reporting simulation experiments, and reporting optimization results. The guidelines are further divided into minimum and preferred requirements, distinguishing between factors that are indispensable for reproduction of research and those that enhance transparency. We also provide a few guidelines for improved visualization of research to reduce the costs of reproduction. Suggestions for enhancing the adoption of these guidelines are discussed at the end. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Mohammad Jalali for providing excellent research assistance for this paper. We thank David Lane for his helpful suggestions.

Since the mid-1990s, the protection of human subjects through institutional review boards (IRBs) has progressively broadened in scope. In this case study, the authors describe their challenges in effectively handling IRB processes to conduct educational and social sciences research within academic health centers, particularly (1) complications in conducting longitudinal interinstitutional research that involves multiple IRBs, each with different procedures that changed over ten years; and (2) factors affecting consent form and survey response rates when applying the biomedical IRB process to obtain the consent of human subjects for participation in social and educational research. The authors had a unique opportunity to follow the effect of changes in consent forms (from no form to a one-page form to a three-page form requiring signature of a witness), ways of administration (in person or by mail), and time of administration (at the time of the program or years later) on consent form and survey response rates among medical and dental school faculty members. The authors explore the extended timelines required for data collection and increased costs in dealing with these issues, as well as the effects on response rates of consent form language and administration procedures. The authors recommend strategies to lessen adverse effects of dealing with multiple IRBs at different institutions for social science and educational research, and discuss policy implications for funders, institutions and investigators.