Geschlechtliche Normierung von Studienf?chern und Karrieren im Wandel

Editorial

Abstract: Research on gender stereotypes about academia often focused on broad areas (natural sciences vs. humanities), but fields within these areas may differ. We measured gender stereotypes about fields from natural sciences (physics, biology), humanities (German language, philosophy), and social sciences (educational science, psychological science, law) among university students. Gender stereotypes differed significantly between fields within areas. Stereotypes about some fields from the natural and social sciences (biology = female, law = male) were even opposite to others in the same area (physics = male, educational and psychological sciences = female). Perceived gender ratios and communion stereotypes about researchers predicted field gender stereotypes. The results demonstrate strong heterogeneity in gender stereotypes within the natural and social sciences, but not the humanities.

Arien Mack Editor’s Introduction WHEN I FIRST BEGAN TO DISCUSS THE THEME OF “ERRORS” WITH MY coeditor for this special issue, Gerald Holton, the question arose as to whether the kinds of “fruitful” mistakes that occur in the natural sciences also occur in the social sciences. While the degree of resem­ blance between the natural and social sciences has long been the subject of discussion within the social sciences themselves, I do not think the question has been much discussed in these particular terms. Since this issue ofSocialResearch attests to the presence of fruitful errors in the natural sciences, we invited several distinguished social scien­ tists to address the question of whether such errors occur in the social sciences. Many of the social scientists from whom I initially requested advice pointed out that, unlike physical laws in the natural sciences, “laws” in the social sciences—if there are any—are often contin­ gent and change as the social and cultural contexts change. In addi­ tion, two of the respondents pointed out, I think correctly, that the prim ary problem in the social sciences is not so much the validity of the claims of social scientists, which may or not be correct, but rather the consequences of those claims for social policies. An obvi­ ous instance of this was Cyril Burt’s claim about genetic differences in intelligence, which led to discriminatory immigration rules and other bad social policy. Fortunately for us at Sodal Research despite the general consen­ sus that “fruitful” errors were not characteristic of the social sciences, several distinguished social scientists agreed to explore the question of social research Vol 72 : No 1: Spring 2005 xl errors in the social sciences and have written interestingly about it for this issue. These articles stand as illuminating complements to the arti­ cles by historians of the natural sciences that also appear, and clarify one more dimension on which the social and natural sciences differ. Arien Mack xii social research ...

The integration of natural and social sciences has been recognized as a key aspect of Earth System (E.S.) research, a cross-disciplinary field involving the study of the geosphere, the biosphere, and society (IGBP, 2006; Leemans et al., 2009; Pfeiffer, 2008; Reid et al., 2010; Young, 2008). Because of societal and political correlates between environmental change and socio-economic development, the study of the Earth System has been increasingly ascribed social and political dimensions emphasizing the need for greater collaboration between the social and natural sciences (Beven, 2011; Kates et al., 2001; Leemans et al., 2009; Reid et al., 2010; Saloranta, 2001; Shackley et al., 1998). The problem of inter-disciplinary articulation between the social and natural sciences is not specific to E.S. research, and its challenges can be traced back to the very origins of the notions of science and social science (e.g. Comte, 1830-1842; de Alvarenga et al., 2011; Latour, 2000, 2004). To a degree, these challenges could be explained in terms of the increasing gulf between two cultures – those of the sciences and the humanities – as suggested by C.P. Snow (1905-1980) in an instigating essay (Snow, 1990 [1959]), due to the high specialization in science and education, and, not less important, to a “tendency to let our social forms to crystallise” (Snow, 1990: 172). More to the point, the increasing importance attributed to the problem has motivated a growing number of analyses concerning the high level of specialization and fragmentation of science and university education (e.g. de Alvarenga et al., 2011; Moraes, 2005; Snow, 1990), but also the societal and political questions concerning research agendas (e.g. Alves, 2008; Kates et al., 2001; Latour, 2000, 2004; Schor, 2008), the disparities between developed and developing countries not just in affluence level, but also in research capacity (Kates et al, 2001; Pfeiffer, 2008; Schor, 2008), and, finally, from a more methodological point of view, the multiplicity of theoreticomethodological perspectives admitted by the social sciences (e.g. de Alvarenga et al., 2011; Floriani et al, 2011; Giddens, 2001; Leis, 2011; Moraes, 2005; Oliveira Filho, 1976; Raynaut & Zanoni, 2011; Weffort, 2006). Yet, in the E.S. field the problem of bringing together social and natural sciences has been a permanent and still unresolved challenge (Alves et al., 2007; Alves, 2008; Geoghegan et al.,

This study attempted to explore the influence of AI-powered creativity and the difference between AI-powered creativity and group perceptions by examining how expert groups perceive AI-powered creativity and what characteristics each group considers important. In consideration of the degree of concreteness of the output in the academic field, the subjects of the study were set in the fields of engineering, education/normal, social science, art, humanities, and natural sciences, and a total of 45 professors in the field were sampled. The survey contents consisted of the characteristics of creative products, the creativity of AI-using products, and the possibility of producing creative products using AI. As a result of the study, the characteristics of creative output were equally high in the fields of engineering and social science, and the resolution and sophistication of education and crime were the same, and the characteristics of novelty were the highest in art, humanities, and natural sciences. In addition, the Pro-C level was the highest in all academic fields. There was a higher perception that engineering, humanities, and natural sciences were still creative as to whether products using AI were creative or not, and that they were not creative in other academic areas. Finally, the possibility of producing creative products using AI in the future was relatively high in all academic fields.

Background. Literature indicates that in academic writing, authors are expected to demonstrate a noticeable stance so that they can make their meaning clear. Therefore, differences between native and non-native writers along with cross-disciplinary academic writing assume great significance. Purpose. The interactional, dialogic, and reflective nature of academic writing requires writers to utilize stance-establishing tools in their writing, the most prominent ones being stance nouns. In addition, the that-clause construction plays a vital role in conveying the author’s stance. Studies that compare L1 Turkish writers of English and L1 English writers regarding academic writing are rather scarce. As such, the present paper aims to analyze L1 Turkish writers of English and L1 English writers in eight disciplines from natural and social sciences in terms of the use of stance nouns in that-clause constructions. Methods. The study employs Jiang and Hyland's (2016) functional classification model in exploring the nominal stance in cross-disciplinary writing of L1 Turkish writers of English and L1 English writers. To this end, journals with high impact in eight disciplines from social and natural sciences were scanned and a total of 320 articles were included in the corpus. The social sciences included in the present study cover applied linguistics, history, psychology, and sociology while the natural sciences cover medicine, engineering, astronomy, and biology. In total, a corpus of 2.232.164 words was formed. Results and Implications. The study found significant differences not only in terms of natural and social sciences but also in terms of L1/L2 distinction. In addition, a secondary purpose of the study was to see whether writers in social and natural sciences differed in terms of empiricist and interpretive rationality. The results indicated that writers in social sciences tended to use more status and cognition nouns, indicating that they tend to be more interpretive. With significant differences between Turkish and English writers from a cross-disciplinary perspective, the present study offers important insights into how writers weave their stance in academic writing. Moreover, the present study also confirmed that writers in social sciences, whether L1 or L2, tend to use more stance nouns compared with writers in natural sciences.

A New Field:<i>History of Humanities</i>

Moral, social, political, and other “nonepistemic” values can lead to bias in science, from prioritizing certain topics over others to the rationalization of questionable research practices. Such values might seem particularly common or powerful in the social sciences, given their subject matter. However, I argue first that the well-documented phenomenon of motivated reasoning provides a useful framework for understanding when values guide scientific inquiry (in pernicious or productive ways). Second, this analysis reveals a parity thesis: values influence the social and natural sciences about equally, particularly because both are so prominently affected by desires for social credit and status, including recognition and career advancement. Ultimately, bias in natural and social science is both natural and social—that is, a part of human nature and considerably motivated by a concern for social status (and its maintenance). Whether the pervasive influence of values is inimical to the sciences is a separate question.

High School Majors, Comparative (Dis)Advantage, and Future Earnings

This paper studies whether specialized academic fields of study in secondary school (i.e., high school majors), which are common in many countries, affect earnings as an adult. Identification is challenging, because it requires not just quasi-random variation into majors, but also an accounting of individuals’ next-best alternatives. Our setting is Sweden, where at the end of ninth grade students rank fields of study and admission to oversubscribed fields is determined based on a student’s GPA. We use a regression discontinuity design which allows for different labor market returns for each combination of preferred versus next-best choice, together with nationwide register data for school cohorts from 1977-1991 linked to their earnings as adults. Our analysis yields several key results. First, Engineering, Natural Science, and Business yield higher earnings relative to most second-best choices, while Social Science and Humanities result in sizable drops, even relative to non-academic vocational programs. The magnitudes are often as large as the return to two years of additional education. Second, the return to completing a major varies substantially as a function of a student’s next-best alternative. Third, the pattern of returns for individuals with different first and second best choices is consistent with comparative advantage for many field choice combinations, while others exhibit comparative disadvantage or random sorting. Fourth, most of the differences in adult earnings can be attributed to differences in occupation, and to a lesser extent, college major. Taken together, these results highlight that the high school majors students choose at age 16, when they have limited information about their skills and the labor market, have sizable effects which persist into adulthood.

Following an initial discussion of the general nature of interpretation in contemporary psychology, and social and natural science, relevant views of Charles Taylor and Thomas Kuhn are considered in some detail. Although both Taylor and Kuhn agree that interpretation in the social or human sciences differs in some ways from interpretation in the natural sciences, they disagree about the nature and origins of such difference. Our own analysis follows, in which we consider differences in interpretation between the natural and social sciences (psychology in particular) in terms of Ian Hacking's use of Elizabeth Anscombe's conceptualization of actions as intentional acts under particular descriptions. We conclude that both Taylor and Kuhn are correct to point to differences in interpretation between the natural and social sciences. We also argue that in psychology, such interpretive differences, contra Kuhn and pro Taylor, are qualitative rather than quantitative. They arise from the nature of persons as self‐interpretive, reactive beings who act under socioculturally sanctioned, linguistic descriptions. The actions of psychological persons may display qualitative differences over time and across contexts as these descriptions, including social scientific and psychological findings and interpretations, change. In contrast, even when descriptions in natural science change, such changes do not spawn changes in the self‐interpretations and intentional actions of the focal phenomena of natural science. We also make the point that much current confusion surrounding interpretation in science arises from the unwarranted tendency of some commentators to treat interpretation as subjective, in ways that ignore the objective grounding of interpretation within regulated social practices, including scientific practices sanctioned by scientific communities.

We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social sciences have not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinese domestic journals in three subject areas—political science and Marxism, library and information science, and economics—are compared with their counterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and life sciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references to journal publications than their international counterparts; like their international colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references than natural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse. Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese social sciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations than their international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established than political science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese political system on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political system are less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, we explore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policy recommendations.

This study investigates the way traditional and alternative secondary public school organizations are structured to impact youths. Some studies have found that traditional secondary schools utilize inappropriate and outdated organizational elements and arrangements. Alternative schools with different organizational arrangements have been initiated in public school districts to institute school reform measures. The three goals of this study are to: (1) collate a large share of the literature on the function, social context and organizational characteristics of conventional and alternative secondary public school organizations, (2) explicate a theoretical framework or interrelated set of propositions of organizational principles regarding modern organizations, including secondary schools, and (3) describe and analyze one alternative high school in Colorado. The theoretical exploration of the literature and case study will address the following questions: (1) what organizational models do conventional and alternative high schools utilize? (2) What are the organizational elements of conventional and alternative secondary public schools? (3) What types of conventional and alternative secondary schools exist in urban areas? (4) How do conventional and alternative high school organizations bear up to the charges leveled against secondary education in America? (5) What are the organizational characteristics of the alternative school in Colorado? (6) What type of alternative school is Mountain Open High School (MOHS)? (7) How does MOHS measure up to the charges leveled against American secondary education? (8) How is MOHS similar or dissimilar to public secondary schools reviewed in the literature? Data for the exploration of the organizational characteristics of traditional and alternative secondary public schools include the following sources: (1) consultation with experts in the field, (2) in-depth literature review, and (3) historical and document analysis. Data for the case study include the following sources: (1) in-depth interviews with 13 student volunteers, the principal, and other staff, (2) field observations, and (3) historical and document analysis. The results show that traditional secondary public schools utilize a bureaucratic organizational framework but organizational characteristics of schools vary according to their function and student body composition. Also, alternative secondary schools exist under bureaucratic principles but differ according to their function and organizational arrangements. The case study of MOHS demonstrates one model with instituted school reform measures.

People and nature: The emerging signature of a relational journal

That there are differences between social and natural phenomena is hardly a matter of dispute, and there is little question that these differences result from role of subjective states such as purposes, attitudes, and beliefs in human affairs. The important question is not whether these differences exist but whether they lead to fundamental differences between natural and social sciences. As Bhaskar notes, this is primal question of philosophy of social and it has dominated social sciences since their birth.1 The ardently contested issues raised by question of relationship between social and natural sciences have permeated social-scientific disciplines in disputes that have decisively shaped their development.2 Perhaps it is only a slight exaggeration to suggest that differences between various schools within social sciences are reducible to different ways these issues have been resolved. The framework for discussion of these issues was in large measure work of Max Weber. This is not surprising from a thinker labeled the last universal genius of social sciences3 by an admirer and the greatest social scientist of our century4 by one of his harshest critics. Although Weber's interest in methodological issues was secondary and his writings on subject usually polemical, erudition and insight with which he analyzed character of social sciences have commanded continuing attention. This attention has focused primarily on Weber's insistence that susceptibility of social phenomena to interpretative understanding radically distinguishes them from natural phenomena and creates a unique task for social sciences. This alone, however, says nothing about relationship between social and natural sciences, and no aspect of Weber's thought has been more controversial or more variously construed than nature of interpretative understanding and its significance for logic of sociocultural inquiry.5