Între așteptări și nedumeriri: Oliver Jens Schmitt, Biserica de stat sau Biserica în stat?

The Progress of Malaysian Translational Social Science and Humanities Research: From Research to Practice

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

Research outputin Malaysia is shown through publications, funding, intellectual property and knowledge transfer. This paper studies the issues of translating knowledge of social science and humanities research into beneficial products. Data is gathered from primary and secondary sources. The findings show slower output and fair amount of publications, reasonable funding for research, lack of quantified knowledge translation between universities and industry, and relatively new research culture. Conclusively, more effort is needed to translate research into practice for social science and humanities research in Malaysia.2398-4295 © 2016. The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK.. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.Keywords: Translational research; social science; humanities; research to practice

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.

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.

Canadian Public AdministrationVolume 48, Issue 2 p. 251-267 Are services delivered more efficiently after municipal amalgamations? Joseph Kushiner, Joseph Kushiner Joseph Kushiner is professor, Department of Economics, Brock University, and city councillor, City of St. Catharines, Ontario. David Siegel is professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University. This research was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.Search for more papers by this authorDavid Siegel, David Siegel Joseph Kushiner is professor, Department of Economics, Brock University, and city councillor, City of St. Catharines, Ontario. David Siegel is professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University. This research was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.Search for more papers by this author Joseph Kushiner, Joseph Kushiner Joseph Kushiner is professor, Department of Economics, Brock University, and city councillor, City of St. Catharines, Ontario. David Siegel is professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University. This research was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.Search for more papers by this authorDavid Siegel, David Siegel Joseph Kushiner is professor, Department of Economics, Brock University, and city councillor, City of St. Catharines, Ontario. David Siegel is professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University. This research was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.Search for more papers by this author First published: 18 March 2008 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2005.tb02190.xCitations: 14 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume48, Issue2June 2005Pages 251-267 RelatedInformation

The News of the Week article that reports on Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) questioning the need to fund social science research at the National Science Foundation is alarming and shortsighted (“Senate panel chair asks why NSF funds social sciences,” 12 May, p. [829][1]). Social science research is at the fundamental core of basic research and has much to contribute to the economic viability of the United States. Twenty years of direct and jointly funded social and ecosystem science research at Colorado State University's Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory has produced deep insights into environmental and societal impacts of political upheaval, land use, and climate change in parts of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Beyond greatly advancing our understanding of the coupled human-environmental system, the partnership of social and ecosystem science has brought scientists and decision-makers together to begin to develop solutions to difficult problems. Insights from the social sciences about the vulnerability, sustainability, and resilience of social and environmental systems have greatly increased our understanding of the complex interactions of the world on which we depend. The contributions of social and ecological science for data analyses associated with spatial relationships, transfer of goods and services, valuation, and decision-making processes have improved our understanding of how human activities are altering environmental systems worldwide. These findings have become the core of policy and development decisions used throughout the world. It is critical that the NSF support social science funding and that, as budget decisions are made, the social science allocation should move forward equally with increases as in other basic and applied research. Failure to do so will further hinder U.S. competitiveness in the future and will slow transfer of knowledge and usefulness to the public. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.312.5775.829a

As society evolves, so do people's needs for increasing awareness and knowledge. This is the driving force behind scientific advancement, including social sciences and humanities. The findings of humanities and social science research have made significant contributions to the ideological and scientific foundations of policymaking and development programs. Due to the distinctiveness of originality and creativity with varied values from scientific values, social practical values, informational values, etc., scientific and technical activities need to be identified, managed, and evaluated in accordance with the proper concepts, criteria, and standards. In a scientific research institution, evaluating scientific research outcomes is a critical task. One of the most crucial roles of evaluation is to comprehend the true scientific value of research findings. This article's objective is to provide a theoretical foundation for ongoing efforts to develop a comprehensive framework for evaluating research outputs in the humanities and social sciences.
 Keywords: Evaluation; scientific research findings; evaluation criteria; social science and humanities research; criteria; scientific research outputs.
 
 

Background We are witnessing increasing demand from governments and society for all sciences to have relevant social impact and to show the returns they provide to society. Aims and objectives This paper reports strategies that promote social impact by Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research projects. Methods An in-depth analysis of six Social Sciences and Humanities research projects that achieved social impact was carried out to identify those strategies. For each case study, project documents were analysed and qualitative fieldwork was conducted with diverse agents, including researchers, stakeholders and end-users, with a communicative orientation. Findings The strategies that were identified as contributing to achieving social impact include a clear focus of the project on social impact and the definition of an active strategy for achieving it; a meaningful involvement of stakeholders and end-users throughout the project lifespan, including local organisations, underprivileged end-users, and policy makers who not only are recipients of knowledge generated by the research projects but participate in the co-creation of knowledge; coordination between projects’ and stakeholders’ activities; and dissemination activities that show useful evidence and are oriented toward creating space for public deliberation with a diverse public. Discussion and conclusions The strategies identified can enhance the social impact of Social Sciences and Humanities research. Furthermore, gathering related data, such as collaboration with stakeholders, use of projects’ findings and the effects of their implementation, could allow researchers to track the social impact of the projects and enhance the evaluation of research impact.

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.

Church History from the International Periphery: The South American Perspective

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

Use of dimensional analysis in social science research

Contemporary academic evaluation regimes, aiming to quantify and rank research quality, scholars and institutions, mostly rely on criteria such as metrics and citation scores. However, researchers started questioning recently whether these are the most appropriate instruments to evaluate academic excellence, especially in social sciences and humanities. Predominant evaluation criteria, such as peer review and citation index reflect only a limited scope of the research quality and relevance, as many dimensions cannot be seized through these traditional indicators, such as societal impact. In response to this criticism, a number of innovative research quality evaluation methods emerged in recent years, aiming to better reflect the complexity of often transdisciplinary research in social sciences and humanities. In this article, we attempt to review some of the most innovative strategies for assessing research quality, especially concerning transdisciplinary research in social sciences and humanities, as well as the societal impact and 'productive interactions'. We conclude that while other innovative strategies are still in the pioneer phase, requiring more research and practical implementation, measuring societal impact emerged as a reliable, relevant, comprehensive and applicable strategy for evaluating research quality in social sciences and humanities.