Social sciences research in neglected tropical diseases 3: Investment in social science research in neglected diseases of poverty: a case study of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

What has the Gates Foundation done for global health?

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.

Now We Are Six

Social science has an important role in aviation biofuels research, yet social science methods and approaches tend to be underdeveloped and under-utilized in the broader aviation biofuels literature and biofuels overall. Over the last 5 years, social science approaches in aviation biofuels research, particularly site-selection, have made several advances. Where early site-selection models either entirely excluded social science concepts or included only a few measurements using poor proxies, current models more accurately, and more comprehensively capture key social science concepts to better examine and predict project implementation success and long-term sustainability. Despite several studies published within the last 20 years noting the need for more empirical studies of social sustainability and improvement in incorporation of social criteria, progress has remained rather stagnant in several areas. To help move the field forward, we conduct a review of the current state of social science research in aviation biofuels with a focus on sustainability, site-selection, and public acceptance research, identifying key approaches, important developments, and research gaps and weaknesses of current approaches. While several review studies already exist, they tend to focus on a single area of biofuels such as public acceptance. By broadening our review to several areas, we are able to identify several common limitations across these areas that contribute to the continued underutilization of social science approaches in aviation biofuels. This includes the preference for practical and reliable indicators for social criteria that prioritize quantitative methods over other approaches. Based on these limitations, we make several recommendations to improve social science research in aviation biofuels, including ensuring that social scientists are key members of the research team, the adoption of a mixed-methods research designs that combines quantitative and qualitative approaches that better measure some criteria and local-level impacts, and adequate resources for social science research throughout biofuel development projects as these methods are often more time-consuming and costly to implement. We argue that implementing these recommendations in future aviation biofuel development projects will improve social science approaches utilized in aviation biofuels research and address a long-acknowledged gap in the field.

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.

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

This chapter looks at the major challenges the social scientists and social researchers are facing in conducting social research during this COVID-19 pandemic due to their physical inaccessibility to the community. The chapter also provides some alternative ways to reduce these challenges using different techniques within the latitudes of social sciences research. This chapter is based on authors' empirical observations, and some evidence is obtained from the experts' opinions working in different disciplines in social sciences. Results found some practical challenges (i.e., many social researchers stop their research practices due to inaccessibility in the communities; many of them started their research, but could not finish it; some researchers are doing their research using alternative tools and techniques; and research funding has been frizzed due to this pandemic). Findings would be useful to the social sciences researchers, academics, research students, policymakers, and development practitioners.

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.

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.

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.

Commercialisation is mainly seen as the purview of science, technology, and engineering research. The focus of commercialising research is the inherent characteristics, valorisation, and translation mechanisms of science, technology, and engineering. In Australia, the commercialisation of social sciences research is often not considered or is even discouraged despite its benefits. This thesis argues that the often intangible, but no less economically valuable or impactful, social science research also generates insights that may drive business success and social progress.Collaboration is core to the success of research commercialisation, which can be used to supplement university income and disseminate research results. This research investigated how the stakeholders, who collaborated through university entrepreneurship in one Australian university to commercialise research in the social sciences, managed the competing logics that arose during collaboration. The research question asked: How is collaboration in research commercialisation in the social sciences negotiated in view of the institutional logics of universities, government, industry, and research commercialisation offices? Understanding the practices and strategies of research commercialisation embraced by university-based social scientists and their industry collaborators contributes to the fields of scholarship in university entrepreneurship, institutional logics, stakeholder theory, and triple helix studies.This thesis presents four nested studies that draw together insights from university researchers, industry partners, government officials, and the staff of the research commercialisation office involved in the commercialisation of social science research in the context of one Australian university. Study 1 reviewed the literature systematically to address the question: How does government create a favourable university entrepreneurship ecosystem in Australia through its policies? Using interview data from organisations such as a university, industries, and a research commercialisation office, Studies 2 and 3 addressed the questions: What are the characteristics, impediments and impacts of social sciences research for a university? and How does a university include the social sciences in collaboration where commercial interest is the main focus? Study 4 used within- and cross-case analyses of interview data with academics, industry partners, and research commercialisation office (RCO) staff to investigate the question: How do individual stakeholders collaborate amid competing logics in a social sciences context? Studies 2, 3, and 4 thematically analysed individual and organisational levels of collaboration as the micro-level unit ofanalysis (individuals) was embedded in the macro-level unit of analysis (the university). The findings identify and characterise some of the challenges in commercialising social science research generated by the competing logics of those collaborating. The findings reveal, first, the systemic failure of Australian Government policies on university entrepreneurship due to the mismatch between the top-down policies of governments and university policies. To support university entrepreneurship and research commercialisation, a combination of top-down and bottom-up government and universities policies would fill the gap in policy coverage.The second finding is related to the call for action of this thesis. It implores the stakeholders of research commercialisation to question the common perception of the value of social sciences research and reframe the understanding of social sciences research commercialisation in a more balanced and nuanced way, keeping in mind that university missions cover social as well as economic development. During collaboration, when the repertoire of behaviours and initiatives from their logics were not sufficient to achieve goals and sustain the collaboration, organisations and individuals adopted elements from other logics. Institutional logics are not rigid, and behaviours can be modified to reach shared goals. While the challenge of competing logics can be alleviated, the advancement of social sciences research commercialisation is hindered by undervaluing its benefits. This thesis suggests that the values of social sciences research commercialisation are emphasised by the social impacts they create, not by the financial return.The third finding was that competing logics can be alleviated through shared goals and adaptation of others’ culture and practice. Engagement may build the trust and commitment needed to lessen competing logics and thus influence the strategies used by individuals and organisations in addressing the competing logics. Moreover, the research found that the strategies used by the university involved in commercialising social science research adhere to university dominant logics in the organisation. The fourth finding indicates that individuals can influence the logic of organisations by creating new practices and by shaping the culture. The fifth findings show that research commercialisation offices are instrumental in mediating between the clashing cultures andpractices of academic researchers and their industry partners and can be considered as a fourth helix in university entrepreneurship interactions.The thesis extends knowledge regarding university, government, and industry collaboration, particularly about entrepreneurship in universities, adds to the discourse on social sciences research commercialisation, identifies strategies to address competing logics, and proposes that research commercialisation offices could be regarded as a fourth helix. This thesis will assist policymakers and participants in social sciences research commercialisation to manage changes and develop strategies to achieve social, research, and financial universities missions.

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

Use of dimensional analysis in social science research

New CEO takes the reins at the Gates Foundation