research topics related to humanities and social sciences

• Write my thesis
• Thesis writers
• Buy thesis papers
• Bachelor thesis
• Master's thesis
• Thesis editing services
• Thesis proofreading services
• Buy a thesis online
• Write my dissertation
• Dissertation proposal help
• Pay for dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help online
• Buy dissertation online
• Cheap dissertation
• Dissertation editing services
• Write my research paper
• Buy research paper online
• Pay for research paper
• Research paper help
• Order research paper
• Custom research paper
• Cheap research paper
• Research papers for sale
• Thesis subjects
• How It Works

HumSS Research Topics – Humanities & Social Sciences Topics

Humss (Humanities & Social Sciences) is an interesting field of study featuring college courses like Journalism, Communication Arts, and Education. Research projects for humss revolve around intellect, change, societal issues, and human conditions. Finding humss research topics is not as hard as it seems. For instance, you should know that research topics for humss differ from science topics because scholars are more interested in questions than answers. Also, your topics should be interesting and controversial to capture your readers. Choosing the right research topic about humss will simplify finding content and buy research paper .

Exciting Research Topic about Humss Strand

Interesting research topic related to humss strand, good research topics for humss students, quality research title about humanities and social science, topics on research problem about humss strand, topics on quantitative research for humss students, quantitative research title examples for humss students, qualitative research topics for humss students, awesome research topics related to humss, best research topics for humss students, perfect humss strand research topics, topics on social issues about humss strand, research topic ideas for humss students, key topics related to humss, research titles for humss students, concept paper topics about humss, humss background design topics, quantitative humss research topics.

Humss strand is one of the courses offered to students who want to pursue college degrees in education, liberal arts, or other social sciences. Choose any of the exciting topics below for your high school humss research project:

• The impact of aging on social interactions
• Anti-vaccination is the latest trending social movement
• Remote working is the latest trend in the corporate world
• What is the root cause of social media addiction?
• Is there a valid connection between social class and success?
• How much control should parents have over their kid’s social life?
• What is the appropriate age to start teaching students about gender studies?
• The impact of single parenting on a child’s social connection

Choosing interesting research about humss strand will help you stand out from the rest and impact the quality of your paper. Below are some thought-provoking humss research topics you can explore:

• Feminism in the corporate place: a critical analysis
• Does parental control influence a child’s social personality?
• Conventional families: how do they impact a child’s development?
• Growing up in an LGBTQ family: How does it influence a child’s sexual identity?
• The effects of social media on teens and youths
• The outcomes of social networking
• Are unconventional families beneficial for child development?
• Young motherhood: How does it impact a child’s wellbeing?

Are you a humss student looking for good topics for your research paper about the humss strand? Below are some ideas worth considering:

• The impacts of foreign education on professional growth
• The link between economic prosperity and the feeling of patriotism among citizens
• The right to privacy: a critical analysis in the digital era
• Social media preferences among different age and social groups
• Does social media increase or reduce loneliness among individuals?
• Is there a link between social media addiction and age?
• How important is adding food education to the modern education curriculum?
• A case study on the correlation between food and national identity

Whether you specialize in education, media, communication, liberal arts, or other social sciences, your humss research topic will influence your grade. You can choose an example of a research title about humss strand from the suggestions below:

• The changes that feminism has bought on gender roles at home
• The social perception of vegetarianism in different cultures
• Spirituality and raw food diets: what is the connection?
• Factors that affect students’ productivity during their free time
• Social media activism: is it as effective as old-fashioned street protests?
• Why you should take body language seriously during online interviews
• Twitter: How it shifted from an ordinary social media platform to a political platform
• Gender bias: concept definition

You can make your essay or research paper stand out and earn good marks by selecting quality topics. Pick a topic about humss strand from the ideas below:

• How has the digital era negatively influenced the social concept of morality?
• The impact of social media on people’s ability to understand others’ feelings
• Justice and wars: Who is the right person to judge?
• The influence of the mass media on political attitudes and statistics
• Awareness of public choice: Why is it so important?
• Framing: What is its role in the political sector?
• The root cause of reduced voter turnout: A case study of the United States
• What impact do advertisements have on political views?

Quantitative research involves collecting and analyzing data from deductive approaches like questionnaires while focusing on testing a specific theory. Finding a good top quantitative research topic about humss strand can make your study easier and more effective. Here are some noteworthy ideas:

• The electoral process in Michigan (specify location): A quantitative analysis
• The cultural practices related to childbirth rates in third-world countries
• An evaluation of the factors promoting teenage pregnancies in the 21 st century
• The rate of teenage pregnancies in third-world countries Vs. first-world countries
• Mass Media: Its impact on political statistics and voter behaviors
• How critical are self-defending networks?
• A critical analysis of the voter turnout in the recent elections in (state country or state)
• Can technology upgrades influence relationships?

Quantitative research involves data collection using questionnaires, interviews, and online or offline surveys. Below are some interesting topics you can write about in this area:

• How can cyber-crimes affect human lives?
• Racial bullying on social media: a critical analysis
• Drug testing in the workplace: is it necessary?
• How practical are modern components of sex education in High Schools?
• The impacts of the government controlling women’s reproductive rights?
• The root cause of stereotypes in society
• How gambling feels to an addict
• Group social education: What are its benefits?

Qualitative research depends on data obtained through first-hand observation, recordings, or focus groups. You can pick a good qualitative research topic about the humss strand from the following examples:

• Why do many students perform poorly in sciences?
• The rate of college acceptance in developing nations
• Academic preparedness of university students in the United States
• Victims of bullying in schools: a case study of (state a specific school or location)
• The relationship between android and apple products
• Online digital marketing: what is it all about?
• Virtual reality worlds: their role in transforming society
• Should kids under four years get a preschool education?

Humss is a vast field with thousands of research topic options for students with various specialties. Choose a research topic related to humss from the following option:

• The cultural construct of the masculine and feminine identity
• How individuals interact with various physical elements
• Inter-nation relationships: what challenges hinder healthy relationships between nations?
• The value of language in societal success
• How has the political sector in the United States evolved in the past century?
• The implications of philosophical studies for the growth of a society
• Diversity: how does it make society better?
• Peace and harmony: why are differences vital for peace and harmony?

Choosing a research title about humss can be challenging if you have not done one before. For this reason, we prepared the following title ideas:

• Religious discrimination in the digital era
• The conflict between religion and the digital era
• Social relations between Islam and Christianity
• The unification of Germany: a look at the process
• The great migration: a critical analysis
• Feminism movements and their impacts on society
• Does studying social sciences give you a better chance of success?
• The impact of the Ottoman Empire on socialization

When choosing the perfect research topics for humss, you should consider your specialization and research type (qualitative or quantitative). Here are some examples to consider:

• The impact of the pandemic on people’s social media behaviors
• Internet purchases: how sales taxes affect them
• The significance of understanding history in studying humanities
• Are all human beings anatomically similar?
• The role of humanities in higher learning institutions
• Do humanities help students achieve higher analytical and problem-solving skills?
• Why do universities require multiple humanities courses?
• The influence of William Shakespeare’s plays on modern literature

Focusing on a social issue is the best way to get a unique and interesting research topic for humss students. Here are some examples:

• The beginning of the feminist era
• How has the pandemic influenced the education sector?
• The implications of social media on religion and culture
• The impact of healthy doctor-patient relationships on the healthcare sector
• The relationship between social media interaction and personality development
• How is the digital era affecting the elderly in society?
• Modern inter-nation wars: implications of the war between Ukraine and Russia
• Is the United States still the most powerful country in the world?

Writing a research paper is as easy or hard as the topic you choose. Here are some humss research title ideas:

• The relationship between empathy and the experience of illness
• The impact of media on the study of medicine
• The relationship between social media and education
• Is diversity vital in society?
• The impact of gun violence on school attendance
• Modern aspects of poetry: a critical analysis
• The COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on social media addiction
• Social media addiction and age: what is the correlation?

Below are some key ideas on the topic about humss you can focus your research on:

• How do parents influence their children’s social behaviors
• Social education: how it helps students develop
• How do teachers include their student’s course choices?
• Boarding schools for boys Vs. boarding schools for girls
• How has social media influenced people’s views of celebrities?
• The role of social influencing in purchasing behaviors
• When is military force justifiable
• Should community service be mandatory for all students?

Your research title for humss will help you determine your paper’s outline and research methods. Below are some incredible topics you should consider:

• Do advertisements still influence people’s purchasing behaviors?
• Social media marketing Vs. conventional advertising
• Dual nationality: its impact on political views
• The implications of personality on political attitudes
• The correlation between collective action and public policies
• Do changes in public policies influence public opinions?
• The correlation between law-making and bureaucracy
• The influence of public policy on innovation

A concept paper provides your research’s purpose, background, and outline. Therefore, choosing the perfect topic is vital. Below are some ideas to look into:

• The US-Mexico Border Dilemma: an analysis
• Perfectionist policy: concept definition
• Why are more people turning to digital work in the 21 st century?
• Ethical issues in the dialysis of homelessness
• Effects of stigma among leaders
• How is technology reshaping the future of social interaction?
• Importance of practical counseling sessions for Psychology students
• How can parents cope with their kids’ disabilities

A good humss research paper should have a background research topic. Here are some great examples:

• The root cause of international cyber-attacks
• The history of Europe and its importance in humanities studies
• The root of punishment in households
• Should religious freedom be granted to kids under 18 years?
• The growth and spread of Islam in African nations
• How missionaries shaped Africans’ views on religion
• The impact of the Great Awakenings on US history
• The growth of Pentecostalism in Latin nations

Quantitative research is a dominant research technique in social sciences, where students can focus on topics like politics and elections. Here are some good ideas:

• The effectiveness of home care against nursing homes
• The development of telehealth in the 21 st century
• How effective are cardiovascular treatments?
• The link between mortality rates and gender
• The changes in critic ratings and their impact on equity returns
• Do people’s decision-making processes depend on their subconscious?
• Impact of racism on mental health
• Social anxiety triggers in youths

Let’s Help You

The humss strand is so vast that you can easily find a topic depending on your area of specialization. You can also pick a topic based on interesting social issues . Also, you must be keen on selecting a quality research title that stands out and makes your writing easier. If you feel overwhelmed choosing a title or writing a humss paper, we are here to help you. Talk to us now!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Top 100 HumSS Research Topics [Recently Updated]

The field of Humanities and Social Sciences, commonly referred to as HumSS, encompasses a wide range of academic disciplines focused on studying human society and culture. HumSS covers everything from literature and history to sociology and psychology. This field is crucial because it helps us understand the complexities of human behavior, societal structures, and cultural expressions. HumSS research topics involve various methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative, to analyze and interpret the human experience.

What Are The Common Problems In The HumSS Strand?

Table of Contents

In the Humanities and Social Sciences (HumSS) strand, common problems may include:

• Limited Funding: Securing resources for research projects and academic programs can be challenging due to competition with STEM fields.
• Interdisciplinary Integration: Integrating various disciplines within HumSS to address complex societal issues effectively can be difficult due to institutional silos.
• Ethical Considerations: Ensuring ethical research practices, especially when dealing with human subjects or sensitive cultural topics, requires careful navigation.
• Data Access and Analysis: Accessing relevant data sources and employing appropriate analytical methods, particularly in the age of big data, can pose challenges for HumSS researchers.
• Public Perception and Impact: Communicating the relevance and impact of HumSS research to the broader public and policymakers can be challenging, leading to perceptions of the field as less practical or valuable compared to STEM disciplines.
• Inclusivity and Diversity: Ensuring diversity and inclusivity in research topics, methodologies, and perspectives within HumSS remains an ongoing challenge, with underrepresentation of certain groups and perspectives.

Addressing these challenges requires collaborative efforts among researchers, institutions, funding agencies, and policymakers to support the advancement of HumSS research and its contributions to society.

Top 100 HumSS Research Topics: Category Wise

• How men and women are shown in today’s stories.
• Comparative analysis of Shakespearean tragedies and comedies.
• Postcolonial themes in Caribbean literature.
• The influence of mythology in modern fantasy literature.
• Digital storytelling: Exploring narratives in new media.
• The impact of the Industrial Revolution on society.
• Women’s suffrage movements around the world.
• Decolonizing history: Rethinking colonial narratives.
• How propaganda influences what happens in history.
• Cultural exchanges along the Silk Road.
• Ethical implications of artificial intelligence.
• Existential themes in contemporary cinema.
• The philosophy of happiness across cultures.
• Environmental ethics and sustainable development.
• Analyzing the concept of justice in political philosophy.

Arts and Culture

• Street art as a form of social commentary.
• Cultural appropriation in the fashion industry.
• The evolution of hip-hop music as a cultural movement.
• Indigenous art and its portrayal of identity.
• The impact of globalization on traditional crafts.

Social Sciences

• Social stratification and mobility in urban societies.
• The sociology of protest movements.
• The changing dynamics of family structures in the digital age.
• Cross-cultural perspectives on marriage and relationships.
• Social media and its influence on interpersonal relationships.
• Cultural variations in perception and cognition.
• Mental health stigma in different cultural contexts.
• The psychology of forgiveness and reconciliation.
• Parenting styles and their impact on child development.
• Cross-cultural studies on the experience of grief and loss.

Political Science

• Comparative analysis of democratic systems worldwide.
• The role of media in shaping political opinions.
• Political polarization and its impact on governance.
• International cooperation in addressing climate change.
• The rise of populism in contemporary politics.
• The economics of inequality and poverty alleviation.
• Behavioral economics and decision-making processes.
• The economic impact of migration on sending and receiving countries.
• Sustainable development and economic growth.
• The role of microfinance in empowering marginalized communities.

Anthropology

• Cultural variations in rites of passage ceremonies.
• The anthropology of food: Cultural significance and rituals.
• Exploring indigenous knowledge systems and practices.
• Evolutionary perspectives on human behavior.
• Cross-cultural studies on gender identity and expression.

Interdisciplinary

• How religion and politics come together in today’s world.
• Digital humanities approaches to analyzing historical texts.
• Environmental justice movements and their sociopolitical implications.
• Globalization and how it affects who we are and keeping special traditions alive.
• The psychology of social movements: Understanding collective behavior.
• The ethics of artificial intelligence in healthcare.
• Cultural representations of mental illness in literature and film.
• The political economy of natural resource management.
• Indigenous rights and environmental conservation efforts.
• The impact of globalization on indigenous languages and cultures.
• Urbanization and its effects on social cohesion and community dynamics.
• Cross-cultural perspectives on aging and elderly care.
• The sociology of education: Inequalities in access and outcomes.
• Political polarization in online communities: Echo chambers and filter bubbles.
• Economic development strategies in post-conflict societies.
• The philosophy of technology: Ethical considerations in AI and robotics.
• Gender stereotypes in media representations: A cross-cultural analysis.
• The role of art therapy in promoting mental health and well-being.
• The political economy of humanitarian aid and development assistance.
• Cultural relativism versus universal human rights: Debates in anthropology.
• Social media activism and its impact on social change.
• Cultural factors influencing health-seeking behaviors.
• The psychology of prejudice and discrimination: Intergroup dynamics.
• Economic globalization and labor migration patterns.
• Indigenous ecological knowledge and sustainable resource management.
• Urban planning and social justice: Creating inclusive cities.
• The impact of globalization on traditional agricultural practices.
• Cultural dimensions of conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
• The psychology of resilience: Cultural variations and coping mechanisms.
• Economic implications of climate change adaptation strategies.
• Diaspora communities and transnational identities.
• Cultural heritage preservation in the face of globalization.
• The intersection of religion and environmental ethics.
• The sociology of leisure and consumption patterns.
• Digital ethnography: Studying online communities and virtual cultures.
• Gender mainstreaming in development policies and programs.
• The psychology of environmental activism and sustainability behaviors.
• Economic development and gender equality: Bridging the gap.
• Indigenous land rights and environmental conservation efforts.
• Cultural diversity in healthcare practices and patient outcomes.
• Social capital and community resilience in times of crisis.
• The anthropology of pilgrimage: Sacred journeys across cultures.
• The politics of memory: Commemoration and historical narratives.
• Economic globalization and its impact on cultural industries.
• Cultural variations in approaches to conflict resolution.
• Digital privacy rights and ethical implications in the information age.
• The psychology of intercultural communication and misunderstandings.
• Economic theories of entrepreneurship and innovation.
• Indigenous knowledge systems and sustainable agricultural practices.
• Cross-cultural perspectives on environmental activism and advocacy.
• Social entrepreneurship and its role in addressing social challenges.
• The anthropology of religion: Rituals and beliefs in diverse cultures.
• Economic inequalities and their impact on social cohesion.
• Cultural representations of disability in literature and media.
• The intersectionality of race, gender, and class in social justice movements.

Emerging Trends and Contemporary Issues in HumSS

The landscape of HumSS research is continually evolving, influenced by new technologies, global interconnectedness, and contemporary societal challenges.

• Digital Transformation in HumSS Research

Digital tools and methods are revolutionizing HumSS research. For example, digital archives and databases allow for unprecedented access to historical documents and literary texts. Furthermore, tools for visualizing data assist researchers in spotting patterns and trends that were hard to see before.

• Interdisciplinary and Cross-Cultural Studies

Increasingly, researchers are recognizing the value of interdisciplinary approaches that draw on multiple fields to address complex issues. Cross-cultural studies, which compare and contrast different cultures, provide valuable insights into universal human experiences and diverse cultural practices.

• Globalization and Its Effects on HumSS

Globalization affects every aspect of human life, from economics to culture. Researchers in HumSS examine how global interconnectedness influences cultural identities, economic systems, and social structures.

• Ethical Considerations in HumSS Research

As HumSS research often involves human subjects, ethical considerations are paramount. Researchers must navigate issues related to consent, confidentiality, and the potential impacts of their work on communities and individuals.

Methodologies in HumSS Research

In HumSS research, different methods are used depending on the questions and data involved.

Qualitative Methods

• Ethnography: This immersive research method involves spending extended time with a community to understand their practices and beliefs from an insider’s perspective.
• Case Studies: In-depth studies of a single case (such as an individual, group, or event) provide detailed insights that can illuminate broader trends.
• Interviews and Focus Groups: These methods gather detailed information through direct conversations with individuals or groups.

Quantitative Methods

• Surveys and Questionnaires: These tools collect data from large numbers of people, allowing researchers to identify trends and correlations.
• Statistical Analysis: This involves analyzing numerical data to find patterns and test hypotheses.
• Experimental Designs: Controlled experiments test the effects of specific variables on human behavior or social phenomena.

Mixed Methods

• Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches: Mixed methods research integrates both qualitative and quantitative data to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a research question.
• Triangulation in HumSS Research: This technique uses multiple methods or sources to cross-check and validate findings.

Digital and Computational Methods

• Digital Humanities Tools: These include text analysis software, digital mapping, and online archives that facilitate new types of research in the humanities.
• Big Data Analysis in Social Sciences: Analyzing large datasets, such as social media activity, to uncover trends and patterns in human behavior.

Challenges and Opportunities in HumSS Research

HumSS researchers face several challenges, but these also present opportunities for innovation and growth.

• Funding and Resource Allocation:

Securing funding for HumSS research can be challenging, as these fields often compete with STEM disciplines for limited resources. However, successful research can demonstrate the value of HumSS in addressing societal issues, potentially attracting more support.

• Balancing Depth and Breadth in Research:

Researchers must find a balance between deeply exploring specific topics and addressing broader questions. This often requires interdisciplinary collaboration and innovative methodologies.

• Addressing Biases and Ensuring Inclusivity:

HumSS research must strive to be inclusive and avoid biases that can distort findings. This involves critically examining the researcher’s perspective and engaging with diverse communities.

• Dissemination and Impact of HumSS Research:

Effectively communicating research findings to a broad audience is crucial for maximizing impact. This includes publishing in accessible formats and engaging with policymakers, educators, and the public.

HumSS research topics that help us understand the human experience in all its complexity. From literature and history to sociology and economics, these disciplines offer valuable insights into our past, present, and future. As researchers continue to innovate and explore new methodologies, the importance of HumSS in addressing global challenges and fostering a deeper understanding of humanity will only grow.

Related Posts

Step by Step Guide on The Best Way to Finance Car

The Best Way on How to Get Fund For Business to Grow it Efficiently

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles on Humanities

Displaying 1 - 20 of 234 articles.

‘What is a fact?’ A humanities class prepares STEM students to be better scientists

Timothy Morton , Rice University

A changing world needs arts and social science graduates more than ever – just ask business leaders

Richard Shaw , Massey University

First contact with aliens could end in colonization and genocide if we don’t learn from history

David Delgado Shorter , University of California, Los Angeles ; Kim TallBear , University of Alberta , and William Lempert , Bowdoin College

Bailout, Band-Aid or back to basics? 3 questions NZ’s university funding review must ask

Nicola Gaston , University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Why arts degrees and other generalist programs are the future of Australian higher education

Catharine Coleborne , University of Newcastle

The humanities should teach about how to make a better world, not just criticize the existing one

Robert Danisch , University of Waterloo

William Wordsworth and the Romantics anticipated today’s idea of a nature-positive life

Jonathan Bate , Arizona State University

How social sciences and humanities programs can prepare students for employment

Sandra Lapointe , McMaster University

Creative skills will be crucial to the future of work. They should take centre stage at the jobs summit

Esther Anatolitis , RMIT University

Friday essay: Simon During on the demoralisation of the humanities, and what can be done about it

Simon During , The University of Melbourne

Humanities are essential in understanding the Russian war against Ukraine

Kyle Frackman , University of British Columbia

How we communicate, what we value – even who we are: 8 surprising things data science has revealed about us over the past decade

Paul X. McCarthy , UNSW Sydney and Colin Griffith , CSIRO

Entrepreneurship classes aren’t just for business majors

Lisa Bosman , Purdue University and Stephanie A. Fernhaber , Butler University

History made the world we live in: here’s what you’ll learn if you choose it in years 11 and 12

Heather Sharp , University of Newcastle and Debra Donnelly , University of Newcastle

Why studying arts like acting or dance can better equip business students for the post-COVID  world

Lucy Gill-Simmen , Royal Holloway University of London

Arts education is facing massive cuts – yet its value is felt everywhere

Adam Behr , Newcastle University

How student-designed video games made me rethink how I teach history

Adam Clulow , The University of Texas at Austin

The role of South Africa’s social scientists in COVID-19 responses: why it matters

Crain Soudien , Human Sciences Research Council

Honouring Te Tiriti means ‘getting into the stream together’ — so this vice-chancellor has become a student again

Jan Thomas , Massey University

Graduate students need a PhD that makes sense for their real lives

Leonard Cassuto , Fordham University

Related Topics

• Collections
• Donald Trump
• Higher education
• Religion and society
• Social sciences
• Universities

Top contributors

Professor of French and Comparative Literature, Georgetown University

Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria., University of Pretoria

Assistant Professor of Religion, California Lutheran University

Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Professor of History, Vanderbilt University

Professor of History, Wesleyan University

Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Department of Physics, University of York

Executive Director, Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences; Honorary Senior Fellow, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne

Professor of Computer Science and Director of the Art & AI Lab, Rutgers University

Professor of Philosophy of Science, Durham University

Eric and Jane Nord Family Professor, Case Western Reserve University

Professor of Philosophy, Public Policy and Governance, University of Washington

Professor of History, School of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle

Professor Emeritus and Former Deputy Vice Chancellor, The University of Melbourne

Sessional Lecturer in Philosophy, Swinburne University of Technology

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

WashU Libraries

Research approaches in the humanities, social sciences, or sciences.

• Conducting Research in 6 Steps
• Social Sciences

Subject Librarians

The staff at Reference Help Desk can also help you finding appropriate sources for background information.  You are also welcome to contact a Subject Librarian for assistance:

Subject Librarians, alphabetical listing

Subject Librarians, subject listing

Researching in the Humanities

The fields in the Humanities discipline generally include the visual and performing arts, philosophy, literature, religion, history, languages, art history, and classics.  Although research methods differ among the Humanities, the Social Sciences, and the Sciences, any research project in any discipline starts with curiosity and a hypothesis.  Often research topics are interdisciplinary and may include multiple subject areas and methods from more than just one discipline.

When beginning a research project in the humanities, you must develop a deep knowledge base in a subject area, choose original sources to examine, locate and evaluate sources that also explore your areas of interest, and then come to your own original conclusions. Libraries can help you find the material you need to get started.  The research guides listed on the right are created by WUSTL Subject Librarians.  Subject Librarians have expertise in both searching techniques and academic fields, and their online guides suggest resources for the different phases of the research process: 1) Use background sources to establish your knowledge base.  These could be subject encyclopedias, key works in a field, bibliographies, etc. 2) Select original sources, commonly referred to as primary sources, for your analysis.  Primary sources are simply original works, e.g., novels, photographs, diaries, correspondence, advertisements, eyewitness accounts. 3) Find articles, reviews, and books that analyze primary sources.  These are known as secondary sources. Then, synthesize all this information with your own thinking and draw your original conclusions, thus creating new research in the field.

Recommended Research Guides

• A Guide to African and African-American Studies by Rudolph Clay Last Updated Apr 30, 2024 467 views this year
• A Guide to American History by Michael Schaefer Last Updated May 16, 2024 1667 views this year
• A Guide to Comparative Literature by Walter Schlect Last Updated Apr 30, 2024 558 views this year
• A Guide to East Asian Studies by Joan Wang Last Updated May 16, 2024 386 views this year
• A Guide to English and American Literature by Kris Helbling Last Updated May 13, 2024 432 views this year
• A Guide to Germanic Studies by Walter Schlect Last Updated Apr 30, 2024 317 views this year
• A Guide to Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies by AJ Robinson Last Updated Apr 30, 2024 255 views this year
• A Guide to Philosophy Resources by Michael Schaefer Last Updated Apr 30, 2024 431 views this year
• A Guide to Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology (PNP) Resources by Sam Lindgren Last Updated May 6, 2024 427 views this year
• A Guide to Religious Studies by Michael Schaefer Last Updated Apr 30, 2024 480 views this year
• Romance Languages & Literatures Subject Guide by Lino Mioni Last Updated Apr 30, 2024 61 views this year
• A Guide to Women, Gender & Sexuality Studies by AJ Robinson Last Updated May 16, 2024 260 views this year
• A Guide to World History by Michael Schaefer Last Updated May 14, 2024 413 views this year
• << Previous: Conducting Research in 6 Steps
• Next: Social Sciences >>
• Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 3:33 PM
• URL: https://libguides.wustl.edu/researchapproaches

• Find a research unit
• Academic publications
• Research Networks
• Research facilities

Arts, humanities and social sciences

Our research into all aspects of social and cultural life is recognised as world leading and in demand from policy-makers, the professions and a curious public.

We focus on some of the longest-established fields of human academic endeavour, such as history, law and music, providing a continually-updated knowledge base for the professions; asking questions about the development of our societies; and examining pressing contemporary issues.

Business, economies and employment

Helping to build resilient and diverse economies, from multinationals to SMEs.

Civil society and communities

Analysing civil societies to understand the communities within them

Conflict, security and crime

Understanding the impact of conflict and how to improve security and tackle crime.

Governance and public policy‬

Examining how countries are governed and public policy is developed.

Health, education and wellbeing‬

Improving policy on health, education and wellbeing for a fairer, safer and more caring society.

Heritage and culture

Understanding the impact of cultural activity on society and exploring our past.

Language and identity

Exploring how language is used and lost, and identity created.

Related links

• Sustainable Places Research Institute Chevron right

We are committed to delivering research that matters.

Anti-Racism and Culture

Archives and the Public

Cities and Urbanization

Computational Social Science

Conflict and Violence

Environment, Sustainability, and Resilience

Ethics of AI

Health, Culture, and Society

Human Migration

Information and Misinformation

Intersectional Gender and Sexuality

Labor, Work, and Occupation

Legal/Pre-Law

Non-Profit/NGOs

Public Service/Public Policy

Science, Technology, and Society

Social Justice

Wealth Inequality

Dialogues of Civilization

Dynamic and playful london: community development and social change, dialogue: language and culture in contemporary france, dialogue: economic development in rwanda, spanish language and peruvian history and culture, food and culture in vietnam and cambodia, the geopolitics of borders: from security to solidarity in sicily, diversity and unity – politics and migration in the netherlands, ethnic identity and conflict in croatia and bosnia, greece, serbia, bosnia: from balkan wars to economic & security promises of european union, prague-warsaw-krakow-gdans, italian language and culture, ireland, literature and film, the twenty-first century city: tokyo and kyoto, language and culture in spain, experiencing the old and new middle east, the united nations in geneva – diplomacy from ai to global public health and climate, spanish language and culture in pamplona, bibao, and madrid, holocaust and genocide studies, new england and old england: coast, country, city.

TODAY'S HOURS:

Research Topic Ideas

• Picking a Topic
• Area & Interdisciplinary Studies

Anthropology Topics

Communication topics, criminal justice topics, linguistic topics, political science topics, psychology topics, sociology topics.

• Business, Economics, & Management
• Current Events and Controversial Issues
• Education & Social Work
• Health Sciences
• Natural and Physical Sciences

Related Guides

• Research Process by Liz Svoboda Last Updated Apr 26, 2024 7864 views this year
• Agricultural practices
• Ancestors (role of)
• Ancient Roman culture
• Body modification
• Burial customs
• Clothing/costume
• Cultural appropriation
• Day of the Dead
• Easter Island statues
• Eating utensils
• Gender roles
• Gift giving customs
• Human universals
• John Frum movement
• Kennewick Man
• Kissing customs
• Language/linguistics
• Primate families
• Religious beliefs/practices
• Repatriation
• Rhine-Danube corridor
• Ritual masks
• Roma (gypsy) culture
• Social networks
• Subcultural groups (e.g. hippies, Hell's Angels, etc.)
• Totem poles
• Traditional medicine
• Untouchability

Related subject guide and suggested database

Articles in anthropology.

The Anthropological Index Online (AIO) is published by the Royal Anthropological Institute (RAI) in cooperation with Anthropology Library and Research Centre at the British Museum. It is an index to articles in journals taken by the Library, which incorporates the former RAI holdings, covering all branches and areas of anthropology. In addition, AIO includes journals and periodicals of anthropological interest that are not in the Library’s catalogues. Films held at the Royal Anthropological Institute are equally indexed as part of the bibliography. The Library holds some 4,000 periodical titles (1,500 current). Nearly 650 journals, published in more than 40 languages, are indexed on a continuing basis. Records cover 1957 to the present.

• Anthropology: A Guide to Library Research by Reference Librarians Last Updated Mar 1, 2024 141 views this year
• Advocacy journalism
• Bot journalists
• Cancel culture
• Comic strips
• Disinformation
• Embedded journalism
• Greenwashing
• Hobo signs and signals
• Media ethics
• Newspapers' declining revenues
• Objectivity in journalism
• Press embargoes
• Section 230 (Communications Decency Act)
• Social media as social justice
• Social media influencers
• Social media literacy
• Social networking
• Underground newspapers
• Yellow journalism

Comprehensive coverage of communication topics in Communication Abstracts and Communication & Mass Media Complete.

Covers major journals in communication, mass media, and other closely-related fields of study as far back as 1915. Includes indexing/abstracting for 600+ journals; full text of 500+ journals.

• Communication: A Guide to Library Research by Paul Streby Last Updated Oct 16, 2023 48 views this year
• Bail reform
• Cadaver dogs
• Capital punishment as deterrent
• Community policing
• Crime statistic reporting
• Cyber crime
• Death penalty
• Decarceration movement
• Domestic violence
• Fiber evidence
• For-profit prisons
• Forensic genealogy
• Forensic geology
• Hate crime / hate groups
• Identity theft
• Illegal drug use
• Innocence projects
• International terrorism
• Legalization of marijuana
• Lethal injection vs. electric chair
• Mandatory minimum sentencing
• Plea bargaining
• Presumptive parole
• Prison overcrowding
• Prostitution
• Racial profiling
• Rehabilitation in prison
• Serial killers
• Sodomy laws
• Undercover police
• Voting rights for felons
• Warren court
• Witness protection program

1968-present. Journals, books, and governmental & non-governmental reports.

• Criminal Justice: A Guide to Library Research by Reference Librarians Last Updated Oct 16, 2023 54 views this year
• African American Vernacular English
• American Sign Language
• Artificial languages
• Borrowed words
• Constructed languages
• English language learner
• Great Vowel Shift
• Indo-European language history
• Language revitalization
• Oral history
• Regional languages
• Secret languages
• Taboo language
• Southern dialect
• Whistled languages

Indexes literature in linguistics and related disciplines.

Linguistics & Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) abstracts and indexes the international literature in linguistics and related disciplines in the language sciences. The database covers all aspects of the study of language including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. Complete coverage is given to various fields of linguistics including descriptive, historical, comparative, theoretical and geographical linguistics. The database provides abstracts of journal articles and citations to book reviews drawn from over 1,500 serials publications, and also provides abstracts of books, book chapters, and dissertations. 

• Linguistics: A Guide to Library Research by Reference Librarians Last Updated Oct 30, 2023 17 views this year
• 2016 presidential campaign
• Arab Spring
• Automatic voter registration
• Campaign finance laws
• Congressional Review Act
• Democratization
• Effect of mass media
• Electoral College reform
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Executive actions
• Executive power, limits of
• Facebook campaigning
• Gerrymandering
• House of Representatives expansion
• Judicial review
• Line item veto
• Mutual defense alliances
• National Popular Vote Bill
• Open government
• Parliamentary system
• Pork barrel legislation
• Ranked choice voting
• Regulations
• Bernie Sanders
• Social democracy
• Supreme Court powers
• Transparency
• Donald Trump
• Voter turnout

Includes full-text journals, reference books, monographs, and conference papers, including those of the International Political Science Association.

• Political Science: A Guide to Library Research by Reference Librarians Last Updated Mar 5, 2024 126 views this year
• Anger management
• Animal assisted therapy
• Asperger's Syndrome
• Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
• Behaviorism
• Bipolar disorder
• Birth order
• Borderline personality disorder
• Compulsion loop
• Cross-dressing
• Dissociative Identity Disorder
• Emotional intelligence
• Family therapy
• Group therapy
• Internet addiction
• Kleptomania
• Mass psychogenic illness
• Megalomania
• Memory loss
• Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)
• Panic attacks
• Peer pressure
• Personality types
• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Postnatal (postpartum) depression
• Prescriptions for ADHD
• Replication Crisis
• Self-esteem
• Sexual assault victims
• Sleeping disorders
• Social anxiety disorder
• Speech disorders
• Theory of mind

1887-present. Includes journals, books, book chapters, and dissertations in psychology.  Short video tutorials on using PsycINFO

Includes the collections APA PsycInfo and APA PsycArticles.

• Psychology: A Guide to Library Research by Paul Streby Last Updated Mar 1, 2024 452 views this year
• Ambient awareness
• Anti-vaccination
• Black Lives Matter
• Conflict theory
• Consumerism
• Counter-cultures
• Cultural assimilation
• Family issues
• Fashion trends
• Flocking behavior
• Gender Issues
• Internet communities
• Nationality
• Occupy movement
• Online dating
• Police brutality
• Poverty gap
• Social media activism
• Social stratification
• Spirituality and religion
• Stereotypes
• Sub-cultures
• Superstitions

Provides access to the international literature in sociology, social services, and related disciplines, 1952-present.

Includes the databases Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Sociology Database, which may each be searched separately. Sociological Abstracts abstracts and indexes the international literature in sociology and related disciplines in the social and behavioral sciences. The database provides abstracts of journal articles and citations to book reviews drawn from over 1,800 serials publications, and also provides abstracts of books, book chapters, dissertations, and conference papers. Many records from key journals in sociology, added to the database since 2002, also include the references cited in the bibliography of the source article. Each individual reference may also have links to an abstract and/or to other papers that cite that reference; these links increase the possibility of finding more potentially relevant articles. These references are linked both within Sociological Abstracts and across other social science databases available on ProQuest. Updated monthly, with approximately 30,000 records added per year. (Description from the publisher's website.)

• Sociology: A Guide to Library Research by Reference Librarians Last Updated Mar 12, 2024 181 views this year
• << Previous: Arts
• Next: Business, Economics, & Management >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 1:06 PM
• URL: https://libguides.umflint.edu/topics

Publication Ethics

Aims & Scopes

Editorial Board

Author Guidelines

About SJOHSS

Key title: Scientific Journal Of Humanities and Social Sciences

ISSN: 2688-8653

Frequency: Monthly

Editor-in-Chief: Leonard Brown

E-mail:  [email protected], [email protected]

SOCIAL MEDIA

Scientific Journal Of Humanities and Social Sciences (SJOHSS) is a monthly online, international, peer-reviewed journal. All articles published are rigorously and fast reviewed meeting the Journal Quality standards. SJOHSS is dedicated to publish empirical, academic, theoretical and review research articles that contribute to the practice in humanities, social sciences, and related topics. The journal welcomes submissions in the areas of Anthropology, Archaeology, Communication studies, Culture, Development, Economy and management, Education, Geography, Globalization, Health, History, Human factors and ergonomics, Humanities, Inter-cultural studies, Law and law enforcement, Library and information sciences, Linguistics and language, Philosophy, Political science, Psychology, Religious studies, Safety research, Sociology, Other areas related to humanities and social sciences.

An author is a person who has a substantial contribution to the article; all other contributions should be mentioned as acknowledgments. Authors should cite only the articles which have contributed to their work; unnecessary citations should not be listed. Authors should present their work as objectively as possible. Arguments that discriminate people by race, sex, origin, religion, etc. are not accepted. Bogus results must not be given. Reviewers should not take advantages from the manuscript; instead, they should help the authors to improve their work. Reviewers should not criticize in public the manuscripts. The Editor guarantees the anonymity of the reviewer. SJOHSS operates a single blind review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor-in-chief for suitability for the Journal. Papers which are suitable are sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The reviewer can be a member of the SJOHSS Editorial Board or an expert from the worldwide scientific community. The review period depends from the research topic of the manuscript and the availability of the reviewers. An average review process period is between 1 - 60 days. In general, the reviewers check the importance of the article in the scientific community, if it is easy to read it and the validity of the scientific content. An article can be rejected from the reviewers’ due lack of poor language quality, lack of proper structure, lack of new scientific ideas, lack of clear concepts or conclusions. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the articles.

Publishing Ethics

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals. For more information see The Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and/or see visit the COPE website: www.publicationethics.org.

Simple and quick way of submission, YOU only need to send your manuscript(s) to us by email:

[email protected]

Email for Chinese Authors only:

SJOHSS @126.com

 MS Word Download 

 Copyright Form Download 

Copyright © 2014-2024 Boya Century Publishing, All Rights Reserved, USA, Hong Kong  and worldwide.

May 15, 2024

10 innovative research projects earn latest funding from VCU’s Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Fund

Faculty are exploring an expansive collection of topics that delve into social and cultural identity as well as practical applications., share this story.

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

By Emily Komornik Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation

Faculty-led projects that touch on a range of topics – from sculpture and swimwear to pediatric medical care and theater – are among the 2024 grant recipients from Virginia Commonwealth University’s Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Fund.

Now in its third year, the AHSS Fund has invested more than $300,000 to support and expand arts and humanities research on campus. In 2022, the  Office of the Provost  and the  Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation  partnered to create the fund, which supports projects that expand imagination, innovation, self-reflection, and understanding of social and cultural identity.

AHSS grants are awarded through a peer-review process, and projects at any stage of development, presentation, performance and publication are eligible. Recommendations from the panel are presented to the Provost and OVPRI for final decisions.

“All of these projects in the fields of arts, humanities and social sciences have the potential to broadly impact VCU and the communities we serve,” said  P. Srirama Rao , Ph.D., vice president for research and innovation. “This collaboration between the OVPRI and the Office of the Provost gives these teams the foundation to jump-start their research in areas that are frequently overlooked. This award perfectly encapsulates the goals of the One VCU Research Strategic Priorities Plan and the overall campuswide research and innovation enterprise by advancing both scholarship and overall improvement of the human condition. I’m so excited to see what the 2024 recipients will accomplish.”

“When we say that ‘ Every Ram’s a Researcher ,’ we mean it,” said  Fotis Sotiropoulos , Ph.D., provost and senior vice president for academic affairs. “In supporting creative and innovative research in arts, humanities and social sciences, we reaffirm our commitment to advancing scholarship across VCU’s entire academic enterprise. The projects chosen for these awards show exciting promise to promote hands-on learning for our students, foster creativity and collaboration, and enhance creative thinking and problem-solving skills. And along the way, they may just help us gain perspective on who we are as a people.”

To qualify for funding, projects must align with the  One VCU Research Strategic Priorities Plan  as a pillar of the institutional strategic plan,  Quest 2028: One VCU Together We Transform . Eligible projects are categorized into at least one of the four key initiatives of the research strategy plan: enriching the human experience, achieving a just and equitable society, optimizing health, and supporting sustainable energy and environments.

Here are the 2024 grant recipients/principal investigators from the VCU Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Fund and the titles of their research projects:

• Daniel Cannone , D.O., (PI) assistant professor, pediatrics, School of Medicine;  Jenny Fox , M.D., (co-PI) associate professor, pediatrics, School of Medicine;  Aaron Anderson , Ph.D., (co-PI) professor, theatre, School of the Arts

             Advancing a Clinical Communication Training Pilot Collaborative between Undergraduate Theatre Program and Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Trainees

• Caitlin Cherry , (PI) assistant professor, painting and printmaking, School of the Arts

             Accommodations Platform for Working with Neurodivergent Artists

• Jeannine Diego , (PI) assistant professor, fashion design and merchandising, School of the Arts

             “A Wardrobe, An Island”

• Rebecca Gibson , Ph.D., (PI) assistant professor, School of World Studies, College of Humanities and Sciences

             Well Heeled: A Bioarchaeology of the Shoe

• Richard Hammack , Ph.D., (PI) professor, mathematical sciences, College of Humanities and Sciences

             Pop-Up Book of the Hypercube

• Renee Lamb , (PI) assistant professor, fashion design and merchandising, School of the Arts;  Jacqueline Mullins  (co-PI) academic advisor, fashion design and merchandising;  Jennie Cook  (co-PI) assistant professor, fashion design and merchandising

             Swim Motifs: An Exploration of Swimwear Design Practices and Implications for Future Applications for Swimmer Confidence and Performance

• Massa Lemu , Ph.D., (PI) associate professor, sculpture, School of the Arts

             Chewanese Cinema as Metonym of Disenclosure

• Michael Jones McKean , associate professor, sculpture, School of the Arts

             “Twelve Earths”

• Ernesto Rodriguez Cruz , (PI) assistant professor, communication arts, School of the Arts

             Constructing a Portable Light Stage for High-Resolution Scanning of Mesoscopic Facial Structures for Computer-Generated Digital Doubles

• Kamden Strunk , Ph.D., (PI) associate professor, SOE Foundations Department, School of Education

             Examining Measures of Racism in Social Sciences Using Meta-Analytic Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To learn more about the VCU Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Fund as well as additional internal funding opportunities under the One VCU Research Strategic Priorities Plan, visit the  plan website .

To find external funding supporting knowledge creation in and across all disciplines, visit the  OVPRI funding page .

Subscribe to VCU News

Subscribe to VCU News at newsletter.vcu.edu and receive a selection of stories, videos, photos, news clips and event listings in your inbox.

Most popular

Graduation Scenes

May 11, 2024

‘The world needs your music,’ Gov. Glenn Youngkin tells VCU’s Class of 2024

May 10, 2024

VCU Board of Visitors sets 2024-25 tuition and fees

May 8, 2024

VCU to celebrate May commencement on Saturday

Latest headlines

May 20, 2024

Five recent VCU graduates receive Fulbright awards for the 2024-25 academic year

May 17, 2024

VCU Internship Funding Program propels students to career success

May 16, 2024

Class of 2024: Mo Ghazal finds a second home – and a second degree – in VCU’s International Dentist Program

• Conferences

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences

• Current Issue
• Back Issues

Announcements

• Full List of Journals
• Migrate a Journal
• Special Issue Service
• Conference Publishing
• Editorial Board
• OPEN ACCESS Policy
• Other Journals

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences  is a peer reviewed journal published by IISTE. The journal publishes original papers at the forefront of humanities and social Sciences issues. The journal is published in both printed and online versions. The online version is free access and download.

IISTE is a member of  CrossRef .

The DOI of the journal is:  https://doi.org/10.7176/RHSS

Vol 14, No 3 (2024)

Table of contents.

Paper submission email: [email protected]

ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484

Please add our address "[email protected]" into your email contact list.

This journal follows ISO 9001 management standard and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Copyright © www.iiste.org

Frontiers | Science News

• Science News

Research Topics

Five research topics exploring the science of mental health.

Mental wellbeing is increasingly recognized as an essential aspect of our overall health. It supports our ability to handle challenges, build strong relationships, and live more fulfilling lives. The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes the importance of mental health by acknowledging it as a fundamental human right.

This Mental Health Awareness Week, we highlight the remarkable work of scientists driving open research that helps everyone achieve better mental health.

Here are five Research Topics that study themes including how we adapt to a changing world, the impact of loneliness on our wellbeing, and the connection between our diet and mental health.

All articles are openly available to view and download.

1 | Community Series in Mental Health Promotion and Protection, volume II

40.300 views | 16 articles

There is no health without mental health. Thus, this Research Topic collects ideas and research related to strategies that promote mental health across all disciplines. The goal is to raise awareness about mental health promotion and protection to ensure its incorporation in national mental health policies.

This topic is of relevance given the mental health crisis being experienced across the world right now. A reality that has prompted the WHO to declare that health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing.

View Research Topic

2 | Dietary and Metabolic Approaches for Mental Health Conditions

176.800 views | 11 articles

There is increased recognition that mental health disorders are, at least in part, a form of diet-related disease. For this reason, we focus attention on a Research Topic that examines the mechanistic interplay between dietary patterns and mental health conditions.

There is a clear consensus that the quality, quantity, and even timing of our human feeding patterns directly impact how brains function. But despite the epidemiological and mechanistic links between mental health and diet-related diseases, these two are often perceived as separate medical issues.

Even more urgent, public health messaging and clinical treatments for mental health conditions place relatively little emphasis on formulating nutrition to ease the underlying drivers of mental health conditions.

3 | Comparing Mental Health Cross-Culturally

94.000 views | 15 articles

Although mental health has been widely discussed in later years, how mental health is perceived across different cultures remains to be examined. This Research Topic addresses this gap and deepens our knowledge of mental health by comparing positive and negative psychological constructs cross-culturally.

The definition and understanding of mental health remain to be refined, partially because of a lack of cross-cultural perspectives on mental health. Also, due to the rapid internationalization taking place in the world today, a culturally aware understanding of, and interventions for mental health problems are essential.

4 | Adaption to Change and Coping Strategies: New Resources for Mental Health

85.000 views | 29 articles

In this Research Topic, scientists study a wider range of variables involved in change and adaptation. They examine changes of any type or magnitude whenever the lack of adaptive response diminishes our development and well-being.

Today’s society is characterized by change, and sometimes, the constant changes are difficult to assimilate. This may be why feelings of frustration and defenselessness appear in the face of the impossibility of responding adequately to the requirements of a changing society.

Therefore, society must develop an updated notion of the processes inherent to changing developmental environments, personal skills, resources, and strategies. This know-how is crucial for achieving and maintaining balanced mental health.

5 | Mental Health Equity

29.900 views | 10 articles

The goal of this Research Topic is to move beyond a synthesis of what is already known about mental health in the context of health equity. Rather, the focus here is on transformative solutions, recommendations, and applied research that have real world implications on policy, practice, and future scholarship.

Attention in the field to upstream factors and the role of social and structural determinants of health in influencing health outcomes, combined with an influx of innovation –particularly the digitalization of healthcare—presents a unique opportunity to solve pressing issues in mental health through a health equity lens.

The topic is opportune because factors such as structural racism and climate change have disproportionately negatively impacted marginalized communities across the world, including Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC), LGBTQ+, people with disabilities, and transition-age youth and young adults. As a result, existing disparities in mental health have exacerbated.

Post related info

May 13, 2024

Frontiers Science Communications

Post categories, featured news, related subjects, research topics, related content.

Opening health for all: 7 Research Topics shaping a healthier world

Frontiers' Research Topic publishing program: pioneering the future of scientific publishing

Frontiers institutional partnerships update – winter 2024

Latest posts.

A devastating fire 2,200 years ago preserved a moment of life and war in Iron Age Spain — right down to a single gold earring

Mariana Fuentes - Changing the currency of conservation

Frontiers institutional partnerships update – spring 2024

Villars Institute Summit 2024: Catalyzing systematic change through interdisciplinary cooperation

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Res Metr Anal

Understanding the Societal Impact of the Social Sciences and Humanities: Remarks on Roles, Challenges, and Expectations

Benedikt fecher.

1 Research Program Knowledge and Society, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, Berlin, Germany

2 German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin, Germany

Freia Kuper

Nataliia sokolovska, alex fenton.

3 Research Area Research System and Science Dynamics, German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies, Berlin, Germany

4 Department of Social Sciences, Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Stefan Hornbostel

Gert g. wagner.

5 Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany

Hanna Hottenrott , Technical University of Munich, Germany

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Science is increasingly expected to help in solving complex societal problems in collaboration with societal stakeholders. However, it is often unclear under what conditions this can happen, i.e., what kind of challenges occur when science interacts with society and what kind of quality expectations prevail. This is particularly pertinent for Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), which are part of the object they study and whose knowledge is always subject to provisionality. Here we discuss how SSH researchers can contribute to societal problems, what challenges might occur when they interact with societal stakeholders, and what quality expectations arise in these arrangements. We base our argumentation on the results of an online consultation among 125 experts in Germany (representatives from SSH, learned societies, stakeholders from different societal groups, and relevant intermediaries).

Introduction

Societal impact is an increasingly important evaluation paradigm in science governance. This trend can be seen in the implementation of large-scale impact agendas in various research and innovation systems over the past decade. Examples include the Research Excellence Framework in the United Kingdom, the Standard Evaluation Protocol in Netherlands, or the Excellence in Research framework in Australia ( van der Meulen and Rip, 2000 ; Geuna and Martin, 2003 ; Bornmann, 2013 ). Consequently, research is no longer assessed according to its scientific relevance alone but also according to the value it appears to generate for society. In Germany, where the present study was conducted, the societal impact of research is also at the top of the agenda of policymakers and research funders, although under a variety of terms. The German Ministry for Education and Research, for example, argues in a policy paper that a dialogue with society must become part of the logic of scientific reputation ( BMBF, 2019 ).

This gradual evolution of societal impact as an evaluation paradigm was preceded by a shift in the scholarly conception of the relationship between science and society, which can be summarized as a shift “from deficit to dialogue” ( Bucchi, 2008 ; Davies et al., 2009 ; Reincke et al., 2020 ). According to this view, science no longer provides knowledge to resolve a deficit but should develop “socially robust knowledge” together with societal stakeholders ( Nowotny et al., 2001 ). This shift in the conception of the science-society interface implies that societal impact requires interaction between scientific and societal stakeholders. As a result, evaluation frameworks increasingly focus on processes rather than outcomes, thus rely more heavily on narratives and on formative methods more than summative ones. An example of the latter is the SIAMPI approach, which focuses on ‘productive interactions’ between science and society ( Molas-Gallart and Tang, 2011 ; Spaapen and van Drooge, 2011 ).

The focus on societal impact in science governance and on interaction as a means to achieve this is particularly controversial for the social sciences and humanities (SSH), which we conceive of here as all research disciplines and subdisciplines that deal with social, societal, and cultural matters. On the one hand, from an internal scientific perspective, SSH disciplines investigate social life itself. This implies that subjects, investigators, and audiences tend to merge with one another and that value judgments might play a particularly important role ( Davies et al., 2008 ; Cassidy, 2014 ). As a result, when SSH researchers interact with societal stakeholders, questions of demarcation and boundary dissolution might arise ( Gieryn, 1983 ; Benneworth and Olmos-Peñuela, 2018 ). On the other hand, from an external perspective, evaluation exercises have rarely considered the particular epistemic conditions and specific utilization logics for SSH research ( Reale et al., 2018 ). Critics have noted the mismatch between indicators and SSH notions of quality, the lack of consideration for contributions that are critical rather than solution oriented, and the overly simple framing of societal impact as economic outputs, such as the number of patents or spin-offs ( Benneworth, 2015 ; Ochsner et al., 2017 ; Fecher and Hebing, 2021 ). Generally, established models for knowledge transfer do not do justice to the complexities of the diverse SSH disciplines and their many publics ( Davies et al., 2008 ).

Arguably, SSH research makes important societal contributions, but these are not well understood—at least not in the governance of science. We therefore recognize a need to better understand the societal impact of SSH disciplines in terms of a) the role they might play for societal challenges, b) the problems that might arise in interactive settings that involve SSH scholars and societal stakeholders, and c) the (possibly conflicting) quality expectations that are placed on their interaction. These objectives motivate our exploratory study, which consists of an online consultation with 125 experts (i.e., SSH researchers from different disciplines along with relevant societal stakeholders). Here, we report on the results of this consultation and reflect on the implications these might have for research evaluation.

Research Interest

The role of social sciences and humanities disciplines in response to societal problems.

There is some controversy about the role that SSH research can play in tackling societal problems: While some scholars argue that these fields should augment and emphasize their transformative potential ( Sörlin, 2018 ; Sigurðarson, 2020 ), others attribute a rather passive role to them, suggesting that they should create system knowledge (i.e., knowledge that increases understanding of a social issue) or orientation knowledge (i.e., knowledge that helps to determine possibilities for action) ( Becker, 2002 ; Jahn et al., 2012 ). One could furthermore argue that the public value of SSH research is not necessarily captured by their usefulness in solving problems but rather by their capacity to critically reflect on the problem itself and its potential solutions ( Olmos-Peñuela et al., 2015 ). In this regard, the societal impact of SSH research may also be counterintuitive if one expects clear-cut solutions to problems formulated in advance. Critics of an overly narrow conception of impact as research utilization have also pointed out how social science knowledge tends to be used in diverse ways, many of which are implicit ( Davies et al., 2008 ; Meagher et al., 2008 ; Stehr and Ruser, 2017 ). Weiss (1980) , for example, observes that expertise can “creep in” as conceptual knowledge that influences ideas and decisions. Compared to the natural and technical sciences, the impact of the SSH is thought to be more indirect and less visible. While utilization of SSH might be discreet, it can also be symbolic to the extent that it is used to justify political decisions that are already made ( Weiss, 1980 ; Albæk, 1995 ; Amara et al., 2004 ).

In summary, it is possible to identify quite different (often normative) perceptions of the societal role of SSH. Accordingly, the notion of socially relevant knowledge attributed to SSH disciplines varies: from more transformative and instrumental knowledge, to more indirect conceptual knowledge, to more counterintuitive critical knowledge. The different kinds of knowledge evoke quite different understandings of the role that the SSH should play in addressing societal challenges, which motivates our first research question (RQ1): What role is attributed to the SSH in addressing societal challenges?

Challenges for Collaborative Arrangements Involving the SSH and Societal Actors

In the sociology of science, the shift from deficit to dialogue is associated with concepts like “Mode 2,” “post-normal science,” or “triple helix” ( Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1992 ; Gibbons et al., 1994 ; Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 1998 ). These concepts all describe knowledge production as a mode of collaboration between scientific and societal stakeholders. According to a concept of transdisciplinarity, the main challenge for such collaborative arrangements is the integration of differences between actors on an epistemic, social-organizational, and communicative level ( Jahn et al., 2012 ). As already observed above, at the epistemic level, boundaries between subjects, investigators, and audiences have a tendency to become blurred in SSH research ( Davies et al., 2008 ; Cassidy, 2014 ). In collaborative arrangements that involve SSH researchers, questions of boundary work might therefore be of particular relevance ( Gieryn, 1983 ). Furthermore, within the diverse SSH disciplines, there is little consensus on research questions and suitable methods, which poses challenges to the robustness of findings ( Ochsner et al., 2017 ). Regarding the socio-organizational level, the structures that support societal exchange in universities are mostly centrally organized and focused on broad public communication ( Peters, 2013 ; Marcinkowski et al., 2014 ; Fecher and Hebing, 2021 ). Questions arise as to how adequate these might be for anticipating the complexities of science in general and of the SSH in particular. Furthermore, the focus on economic indicators as a means of measuring societal impact in the past might have led to structural discrimination against SSH disciplines in organizational efforts to promote societal engagement ( Benneworth and Olmos-Peñuela, 2018 ; Fecher and Hebing, 2021 ). Jacobson et al. (2004) suggest implementing an array of organizational measures that are believed to be more suitable for SSH disciplines, from increasing resources to fostering the skills of individual researchers. Regarding the communicative level, SSH researchers have frequently been accused of using overly specialized and obscure terms ( Alvesson et al., 2017 ; Healy, 2017 ). At the same time, because the social sciences—and to a lesser degree, the humanities—investigate social life, they must deal with the everyday observations and ad hoc assumptions of the individuals with whom they engage (cf. Cassidy, 2014 ).

Some researchers argue that a consensus on values is not the only necessary condition for facilitating cooperation between heterogeneous actors; more importantly the conditions and structures for cooperation must be created ( Star and Griesemer, 1989 ). For SSH disciplines, this might come with particular challenges that are not yet well understood. This motivates our second research question (RQ2): What hinders interaction between SSH researchers and societal stakeholders?

Quality Expectations Regarding the Interaction Process

If our aim is to grasp the collaborative settings of knowledge production, we will likely need to go beyond criteria that are either purely academic or targeted towards science communication through the media ( Secko et al., 2013 ; Rögener and Wormer, 2017 ). The term “socially robust,” meaning that knowledge should be scientifically robust and socially useful ( Nowotny et al., 2001 ), is now used frequently to describe quality in these settings. Rather than bridging a cognitive gap (as purely academic projects would do), these new modes of knowledge creation aim to bridge social gaps, i.e., they are geared towards potential users, political decision makers, and entrepreneurs ( Maasen and Lieven, 2006 ). The authors argue that in these settings, actors must develop social accountability procedures collaboratively. This undertaking produces social demands that differ from those made in disciplinary research because the researchers need to work outside the set of scientific norms that would otherwise guide their practice ( Merton, 1973 ; Mitroff, 1974 ). This creates new requirements vis-à-vis the outcome. These outcomes are not easily located on a disciplinary map but instead suit the context of application ( Gibbons et al., 1994 ). This will most likely be accompanied by processual requirements to bridge the above-mentioned gaps and to deal with the specific contexts that are addressed by these arrangements.

There are general preconceptions about how collaborative modes of knowledge production might consolidate the quality conceptions of all parties involved. Still, these often remain at an abstract level, which motivates our third research question (RQ3): What do scientific and societal stakeholders perceive as the conditions for good interaction?

Data and Methods

The study is exploratory in that it aims to better understand the societal impact of SSH disciplines by an empirical examination of the role ascribed to SSH research in addressing societal challenges, as well the quality expectations arising in collaborative processes involving SSH researchers. Our findings are based on an online consultation of SSH researchers, societal stakeholders, and intermediaries. We subsequently discussed the results of the consultation with SSH and science researchers in two workshops, where we further scrutinized their implications for assessing the societal impact of SSH.

The selection of participants in the consultation process was deliberate and targeted a) researchers from different SSH disciplines who had experience of knowledge transfer and b) societal stakeholders from politics, media, business, culture, civil society, and public administration who had experience in collaborating with SSH scholars. In order to ascertain that participants did indeed have experience of collaboration, we conducted preliminary interviews, researched specific collaboration projects, and, in the case of researchers, asked learned societies for nominations. The deliberate selection of participants was necessary in order to ensure that respondents could legitimately provide answers to the partly normative questions. Our final sample consists of 125 responses, of which 36 are SSH scholars, 71 societal stakeholders, and 18 intermediaries. Of the SSH scholars, four participants came from core humanities disciplines (philosophy, legal studies, history), four from economics, thirteen from other social sciences, and one each from pedagogy, linguistics, and design research. Twelve of the researchers did not indicate their disciplinary background. Further, our sample includes a group we describe as “intermediaries.” These are individuals that are involved in managing and enabling collaborations between SSH researchers, for example communications officers at universities or independent science communication consultants. We chose to include this group in the consultation because we assumed that they would be uniquely positioned to observe and thus reflect on the conditions of these interactions. Table 1 illustrates the final expert sample by group membership.

Sample of the online consultation by group membership.

The consultation consisted of an online survey that comprised both a close-ended section on sociodemographics and a set of mainly open-ended questions about individual experience in collaborative settings involving SSH researchers. Our analysis of the three research questions is based on five open questions in the survey ( Table 2 ). One of the questions refers to the Covid-19 pandemic ( Table 2 ; RQ1). We chose to include this because the pandemic is a complex societal challenge and is thus relevant to the subject of the study.

Research interest and survey questions.

We conducted a structuring content analysis in order to analyze the textual data. This technique corresponds to the inductive technique of qualitative content analysis ( Mayring, 2000 ) and takes into account Kuckartz’s structuring method by using an interpretative initial processing to then iteratively form consistent categories ( Kuckartz, 2014 ). Quotations in this paper are the authors’ translations from the original German responses into English.

We encouraged the experts to publish their names and responses because we consider them relevant for further research: 103 agreed to publish their responses, 68 agreed to publish their names and institutions, 27 to publish only the name of their institutions, and 30 wished to stay anonymous. The survey instrument, the anonymized MAXQDA file, as well as the full answers of those who granted permission, can be found on the project website.

This study had limitations regarding the selection of participants in the consultation: Despite every effort being made to recruit a diverse and relevant set of participants, the selection can hardly reflect the diversity of SSH researchers and its many specialized societal stakeholders. Further research is necessary to understand the manifestations of the generic categories presented here in different contexts.

From the survey responses, we first identify topics that SSH research is associated with and the role SSH research fulfills within society. Second, we present the challenges that are mentioned when SSH researchers and societal stakeholders interact. Third, we turn to quality expectations in this interaction. In each results section, we will report on the findings by referring to the number of codes ascribed to a category in brackets and use exemplary quotes where suitable.

Role of Social Sciences and Humanities Researchers

From the responses regarding the societal issues that SSH expertise is relevant for, we were able to identify 31 societal issues that span nearly every aspect of social and natural life, as well as technical innovation. Broadly, these can be assigned to the following categories: “politics” (45), “economy” (47), “culture” (6), “education” (26), “ecology” (56), “civil society” (131), “health” (34), and “technology” (42).

The answers likely relate to the respondents’ particular interests and expertise and do not represent those areas of real-world problems that the SSH contribute to. However, the issues show that the spectrum of topics ascribed to SSH disciplines goes far beyond narrow disciplinary couplings (e.g., educational research that deals with education or economics that deal with economic growth) and includes contemporary and frequently transformative topics, such as climate change, migration, or the current pandemic. The ubiquity of potential issues for SSH engagement is expressed in this quote from a journalist:

“Every topic has a societal component—from fundamental questions of democracy and politics to questions concerning nature and technology. Basically, each question that requires social action and regulation” (Media_ID103, 10).

While these issues provide some indication of the wide topical range for potential SSH engagement, the participants’ perception of the role of SSH research in addressing these societal issues might provide a more accurate picture of how that engagement might actually unfold. We coded the answers to the question of how participants assess the role of SSH research in solving societal problems accordingly. In total, we identified six distinct societal roles that are frequently referred to by the experts: explaining, reflecting, educating, signaling, foresight, and informing ( Table 3 ).

Societal functions of SSH knowledge.

We found indications that each of these six functions correspond to different types of knowledge. For example, the “explain” category relates to system knowledge needed to understand a social issue because it contains statements from participants that are geared towards contextualizing social issues without suggesting any concrete instructions for action. By the same token, the “educate” category contains knowledge used to build competence in a specific issue area. The category “foresee” relates to knowledge needed to determine possibilities for decision-making as it contains statements from participants that refer to future developments. For example, one person working in public administration describes SSH research as an “early warning system for problems that have not yet become apparent” (PublicAdmin_ID61, 9). According to this statement, SSH disciplines should assess the societal implications of social change. These include, as several respondents state, the implications of artificial intelligence on the future of work.

The “inform” category is closely linked to what is referred to as the instrumental use of SSH knowledge, i.e., it is used directly for decision-making. Both the “reflect” and the “signal” categories resonate with what might be considered critical knowledge. Statements in the “reflect” category do not refer to the provision of expertise for problem solving but to interpreting and analyzing the problem and the solution. The “signal” category includes statements that, according to the participants in the consultation, refer to issues that receive too little attention but are considered relevant to public discourse or policymaking. Accordingly, the role of SSH disciplines is to point to these problematic aspects and to act as a critical observer. In relation to the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, the participants mentioned that SSH researchers emphasized the psychological, social, and cultural consequences of pandemic control. Some experts believe SSH expertise is not given enough attention in current political strategies, others like this intermediary describe their influence as lagged but present:

“Whereas at the beginning it was mainly the virologists who were heard, in my opinion the social sciences have now made themselves heard in many respects and have pointed out numerous important aspects of economic and socio-political relevance. For example, the fact that the daycare centers and schools have not yet been closed again is not only due to the virological assessment that children are less likely to spread the virus, but also due to the indications of the problems for working parents and for the children whose educational disadvantages have been exacerbated” (Intermediary_ID110, 24).

The statements from politicians in our sample frequently referred to the “foresee” category, but other than that there were no striking quantitative variations in the distribution of codes.

With regard to the roles attributed to the SSH in solving societal problems, we identified different levels of activity, from a rather passive, contextualizing role (e.g., “explain”) to a more active, influencing role (e.g., “inform”). This leads us to conclude that the SSH provide a diverse range of problem-relevant kinds of knowledge for societal challenges. From a solution-focused point of view, SSH knowledge is partly counterintuitive because it does not necessarily aim to contribute to a solution but seeks to question the problem and its solution. Moreover, rather than producing knowledge that might itself stimulate change or even transformation, SSH disciplines are more frequently attributed the role of producing “cohesion knowledge,” that is, knowledge that helps anticipate change. In this regard, SSH research fulfils a moderating role in complex change processes by helping to establish and maintain social order, cohesion, and equality. In our view, the multiple roles attributed to SSH disciplines could amount to a moderating role that would involve taking into account the complexity of issue formation in change processes as well as attempts to tackle these. Therefore, SSH disciplines are in a position to consider overarching issues of social cohesion and equality. The capacity of SSH research to address questions of cohesion is strongly reflected in the frequency of references to issues: the terms equality or inequality are mentioned 79 times by the respondents, democracy is mentioned 32 times, and cohesion or similar terms are mentioned 28 times.

Interaction Challenges

In order to understand where difficulties arise in the interaction between SSH scholars and societal stakeholders, the participants were asked about the problems and challenges they experienced in previous interactions and—in order to assess organizational aspects—the role of universities in supporting science-society interactions. We identified four kinds of interaction challenges in the answers: 1) translational challenges that relate to different modes and logics of interaction, 2) institutional challenges that relate to the governance and organization of science, 3) epistemic challenges that relate to knowledge creation processes of SSH disciplines, and 4) uptake challenges that relate to the use of SSH expertise by different societal stakeholders. Table 4 presents these challenges and their subdimensions.

Interaction challenges.

Translational Challenges: Conflicting System Logics and Boundary Work

Translational challenges relate to different modes and logics of interaction between involved parties. The category comprises statements made by respondents that refer to semantic aspects and systemic differences between science and other social systems that hamper meaningful interaction. The statements in this category can be split into two categories: “language barriers” (27) and “conflicting system logics” (73).

Some participants perceive the language of SSH scholars to be complicated, as this journalist describes:

“As a journalist, it strikes me that social science researchers very often and unfortunately quite naturally use terms that are hardly used or understood by the general public” (Media_ID159, 13).

Differences, however, can be found in the assessment of language barriers. Some see the use of technical concepts as a necessity for describing social phenomena in a differentiated way, while others see it as unnecessarily complicated prose that is a hindrance to productive exchange. In general, references to language barriers are mostly made by participants working in the private sector or in the media.

A second challenge can be described as “conflicting system logics.” Statements in this category refer to three closely related aspects of incompatibility: 1) temporality of SSH research (i.e., SSH research takes time and cannot satisfy needs immediately), 2) conflicting notions of relevance (i.e., societal relevance of SSH is not based on immediate societal needs), and 3) self-referentiality of SSH research (i.e., SSH research refers to itself and not to what others consider social problems). The conflicting system logics resulting from these are well expressed in a quote from an SSH researcher, who on the one hand calls for SSH researchers to anticipate different societal contexts (here the media) but on the other hand reports that this can lead to conflicts among academic peers:

“Scholars should recognize that they move in a different system logic when they communicate with the media, for example. I experience a lot of criticism of the portrayal of science in the media, which I consider inappropriate. Of course, there is a decrease in length, but that is also completely okay.” (SSHscholar_ID138, 16–17)

In general, the participants often refer to different system logics, usually to explain why an exchange could not take place from their specific perspectives. In this quote, for example, a politician reports on the context of his decision making and the associated lack of time to deal with SSH research:

“Science is a different system than politics; there is a democracy proviso; being an elected official does not give me enough time to read or receive scientific literature.” (Politics_ID196, 17)

Different system logics explain the translational challenges between SSH researchers and members of other social subsystems, specifically with regards to language usage, the notions of relevance, and time and content-related use considerations. This explanation can be problematic when functional differentiation of social systems is used as a pretext for not engaging in interaction at all. It might be more fruitful to think of the interaction between societal stakeholders and scientists as one where boundaries between science and nonscience are contextually and continuously dissolved and redrawn.

Institutional Challenges: Mismatch Between Aspiration and Resources

Institutional challenges relate to the governance and organization of science. In this respect, we identified three types of challenges in the statements. These are “lack of resources” (19), “lack of organizational support” (19), and “lack of rewards” (20).

In most cases, references to lack of resources refer to limits concerning SSH researchers’ time and skills. One social scientist mentioned the need for training for research staff when explaining the latter:

“[We] are not trained to do this; we usually do basic research and teach basic science at universities—we need knowledge transfer” (SSHscholar_ID68, 15).

A second institutional challenge relates to the lack of organizational support. Respondents often refer to a decoupling of transfer infrastructures at universities and the researchers working there, or to necessary investment in transfer capacities at research organizations. The latter becomes clear in this statement made by a participant who works in public administration:

“In my opinion, scientific institutions should invest more in public relations—these positions are often sparsely staffed and funded [...]. The relevance of the job/intermediary function is recognized more and more, but this is (often) not yet reflected in the structures” (Intermediary_ID229, 13).

A third challenge in this category is the lack of rewards for societal engagement, which the participants link to the academic reputation and funding system. Another social scientist describes what she perceives as an undervaluation of engagement as follows:

“[There is a] lack of reputation for this activity as opposed to third-party funding and high-ranking publications. [Engagement] is only an “add on”” (SSHscholar_ID44, 13).

The notion of “engagement as an add-on” (i.e., not a main task) is mentioned frequently and especially by SSH scholars in the consultation. However, the participants discuss the matter of recognition with significant differentiation: One expert describes societal impact as an additional pathway for scholarly work, alongside scientific impact:

“Since publication excellence can hardly be mitigated, they could instead create funding lines that can only be used if the relevance to the SDGs is laid out clearly,” (SSHscholar_ID65, 28).

Lack of recognition for public engagement activities and a lack of resources to carry them out are not specific to SSH disciplines per se. However, they may be more pronounced here because knowledge transfer is even less rewarded and incentivized in a dominant framework focused on economic outcomes. If strengthening societal engagement is a science policy priority, the results here suggest that there is a perceived mismatch between this aspiration and the resources allocated to it.

Epistemic Challenges: The Illusion of Stable Social Sciences and Humanities Knowledge

The epistemic challenges category describes challenges that relate to the knowledge creation of SSH disciplines. It includes two subcategories, “ambiguous results” (23) and “conflicting paradigms” (9).

With respect to “ambiguous results,” statements often contain comparisons to the “hard” natural sciences, where results are perceived by some participants to be clear and unambiguous. In contrast, results from SSH disciplines are often described as vague. For example, for a respondent who works as a researcher and in the media, this is the main reason why results from the natural sciences are preferred:

“Questions and research designs are often too vague, the results too ambiguous. Therefore, journalists prefer communicating results from the natural sciences” (SSHscholar_ID142, 16).

The “conflicting paradigms” category contains statements that emphasize how different schools of thought within SSH disciplines result in different ways of understanding and assessing the same issue. A social scientist in the consultation interpreted the heterogeneity of SSH disciplines as an impediment to communication:

“Distinctive disciplinarity and families of methods in SSH disciplines prevent common problem-oriented communication” (SSHscholar_ID206, 22).

While the heterogeneity of SSH disciplines is often described as normal and indeed as an asset by the participants, some point to a problem, namely that this lack of consensus can also be perceived by the public as a lack of scientific rigor. This can lead to a loss of reputation and trust.

“One challenge is the question of how issues that are scientifically controversial can be presented to the public in such a way that the reputation of science does not suffer and, ideally, this heterogeneity can even be used productively” (SSHscholar_ID179, 13).

Of course, conflicting paradigms and ambiguous results are not purely SSH problems. However, they manifest in specific ways there. In general, SSH disciplines comprise very different approaches, research questions, and epistemological premises. Moreover, their results are often strongly dependent on context. These characteristics are echoed in our respondents’ view of the ambiguity of SSH results, which they describe as a challenge when interacting with societal stakeholders.

Uptake Challenges: Lacking Appreciation and Public Attention Dynamics

The category uptake challenges includes statements from participants that relate to the use of SSH expertise by societal stakeholders. We identified three types of uptake challenges. These are: “lacking public appreciation” (27), “public attention dynamics” (13), and the “risk of instrumentalization” (5).

Regarding “lacking appreciation,” SSH disciplines are, again, often contrasted with the natural sciences by participants. Many of them describe the natural sciences as having a comparatively higher public status, which becomes obvious in this statement from an SSH scholar:

“From my point of view, we offer many research topics that are of interest to a broader public, but we are not yet perceived and treated equally with the natural sciences” (Intermediary_ID229, 16)

This observation is backed up by a journalist who explains that while disciplines such as medicine, physics, or engineering are met with fascination, SSH disciplines are not:

“While the natural sciences and medicine are often met with widespread fascination for their subjects in society, this is often lacking in social science. Physics and technology are sexy, other disciplines are not” (Media_ID159, 16).

The “dynamics of public attention” subcategory subsumes statements that describe SSH research as being out of kilter with the public interest. In general, this refers to a perceived mismatch between the utilitarian perspective of societal stakeholders and the supply of knowledge that SSH disciplines can provide. Often, participants refer to the fast pace of social media, which SSH research cannot keep up with. Some participants even describe adverse effects when SSH researchers adapt their communication to the dynamics of publicity, which is made obvious in a quote from a humanities scholar, who explains how attention might trump relevance in public communication:

“Provocation is better “received” than factuality; “loud” colleagues are simply better seen and heard” (SSHscholar_ID67, 13).

The “risk of instrumentalization” category is rarely referenced. We list it nevertheless, because it is often mentioned in the literature and is distinct from the other listed challenges. The category subsumes statements that refer to the misuse of SSH expertise for political interests. For instance, a representative working in the economy and for an NGO states:

“Politicians must not misuse scientific findings for their own agendas and thereby partly discredit them” (Economy_ID96, 18).

Taken together, when SSH results are discussed by the public, they appear to not be appreciated in the same way as natural science results. Instead. they are made subject to attention dynamics and might be instrumentalized. This negative perception might be linked to the subtle nature and multiple ways in which SSH expertise reaches the public and political decision makers. If media attention factors determine whether SSH results are noted by the public, the scientific and societal relevance of SSH expertise might recede.

Quality Expectations

The third research question addresses quality expectations, i.e., conditions for a good exchange between societal stakeholders and SSH researchers. To this end, we asked the participants open questions about their expectations for a good exchange and about the specific conditions that might apply to SSH disciplines. From the answers, we are able to identify eight distinctive quality expectations that can be divided into three main categories. These are 1) process-related, b) outcome-related, and c) person-related quality expectations ( Table 5 ). Engagement with society, albeit an aspiration of many research organizations, seems to be difficult in current organizational structures according to our respondents.

Quality expectations.

Process-Related Quality Expectations

Process-related quality expectations refer to the interaction between SSH scholars and societal stakeholders and includes the codes “comprehensibility” (26), “pertinence” (13), “inclusivity” (26), and “form” (25).

“Comprehensibility” encompasses statements that refer to the mutual understanding between actors. Typically, these statements refer to comprehensible and clear communication of results on the part of SSH scholars and the adaptation to interlocutors. Accordingly, complex contents should be conveyed in such a way that those involved in the dialogue are able to follow and respond in an informed manner. The code “pertinence” refers to statements that suggest that knowledge should be used in a problem—and solution-oriented manner. This is illustrated by a statement made by a politician:

“For the policy sphere, I would like to see more focused exchanges that bring in key research findings” (Politics_ID237, 19).

“Inclusivity” refers to the actors involved in an interaction. We distinguished between two types of inclusivity. The first is selective inclusivity, which means that appointed experts who can contribute relevant and specific expertise should be involved. The second is universal inclusivity, which implies broader participation involving those who are possibly affected by the issue. Some participants point out that diverse expertise is needed to achieve viable results. Lastly, statements coded as “form” typically refer to the existence of an interaction format that is adequate for exchange and problem-solving.

It is impossible to meet all of these expectations of the interaction process. One SSH scholar puts it in these almost utopian terms:

“The goal should be to communicate complexity, reflexivity, and provisionality simply, clearly, understandably, and plausibly” (SSHscholar_ID205, 15).

It can be assumed that the more complex a problem is and the more diverse the parties involved in the interaction process, the more difficult it will be to arrive at some form of shared meaning. In this regard, there are expected tensions between inclusivity, pertinence, and comprehensibility, while formality might imply a strategy to meet these expectations in the best possible way.

Outcome-Related Quality Expectations

Outcome-related quality expectations refer to the results of an interaction process between SSH scholars and societal stakeholders. This category comprises the codes “transparency” (30) and “relevance” (31).

The code “transparency” indicates statements that refer to two kinds of transparency: 1) method transparency and 2) motivation transparency. In this article, we use method transparency to refer exclusively to SSH disciplines and signal the requirement of communicating uncertainties and clearly describing methods as necessary for good exchange. Motivation transparency refers to the communication of motivating factors (e.g., personal interest, dependencies, client expectations) and pertains to both SSH scholars and societal stakeholders. This is made obvious in a statement from a social science scholar:

“As part of society, scientists perceive and research socially relevant topics—politics should make the use of scientific research results transparent” (SSHscholar_ID68, 18).

“Relevance” includes statements that refer to the practical implications of the interaction process. We distinguished between individual and societal relevance. Individual relevance signifies the benefits for the individuals involved and is described by some as a motivating factor for partaking in the interaction process. Societal relevance is usually viewed in a differentiated way as referring either to benefits for individual citizens or benefits for specific groups and sectors of society. In some statements, such as the following made by a politician, societal relevance is framed as a return on societal investment in publicly financed research:

“Society makes a considerable contribution to the financial security and freedom of science, not least through public budgets. It can therefore expect science to take an interest in societal issues and to make its contribution to solving societal problems [...]” (Politics_ID234, 18).

However, achieving both transparency and relevance might be difficult, as this statement from an economics scholar shows:

“The greatest challenge in communicating social science research is often to openly acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in its findings while convincing people that they nevertheless contain important information” (SSHscholar_ID157, 16).

In this case, transparency is seen as a hindrance for relevance. Further tensions might arise when personal and societal relevance do not correspond, or when transparency (in the sense of replicability) cannot be achieved. There might also be a conflict between different quality expectations in the outcome of the interaction process.

Person-Related Quality Expectations

Person-related quality expectations refer to the individuals involved in the interaction process. They subsume the codes “empathy” (67) and “disinterestedness” (14).

“Empathy” indicates statements that refer to the mutual acknowledgement of all parties involved. Most statements in this category refer to acknowledging the position of the other parties involved in the interaction process. Typically, the social position of an individual comes with certain concessions, for example, journalists are granted reporting duties, politicians have decision-making power, and SSH scholars possess research autonomy. The reciprocal nature of the expectation of empathy is made clear in this quote from a journalist in the consultation:

“When researchers recognize that the media are their partners—in discourse, in presentation, in criticism. That means being available for media inquiries, discussing issues of relevance with a journalist, and sharing material. It also means tolerating exaggerations, even if one’s own business is differentiation” (Media_ID114, 16).

Some participants state that empathy should not be blind but informed. This is made obvious in a quote from a participant who works in public administration:

“It is important that the results of SSH disciplines can be properly assessed. Excessive claims in the social sciences, in the sense of objective truths, can easily produce disappointment and lead to a deviation, which in the worst cases can then leave the impression of arbitrariness of the decisions and actions under discussion” (PublicAdmin_ID167, 15).

The code “disinterestedness” is used for statements that emphasize that actors should not pursue their own interests but act for the benefit of society. This is often combined with the expectation that personal opinions should be separated from facts and that the conversation should be devoid of emotions and self-promotional intentions. Responding to the question of what constitutes a good collaboration between science and society, one SSH scholar states:

“In my view, a good exchange is characterized above all by the fact that it is not primarily guided and inspired by the self-promotional intentions of individual scientists or scientific organizations” (SSHscholar_ID37, 16).

There are conflicts between disinterestedness and empathy, for instance when it comes to the proclaimed necessity of leaving emotions aside. In addition, there may be potential cross-category tensions between person—and outcome-related quality expectations, for instance in relation to disinterestedness and the individual relevance described above. The same holds true for informed empathy and inclusivity. Remarkably all participants, researchers as well as societal stakeholders from different fields, name the quality expectation empathy most frequently as a condition for exchange. Reflection on ones own position seems crucial for science-society-interactions.

In this article, we used an expert consultation to examine the societal impact of SSH disciplines, i.e., the role of SSH research in addressing societal issues, as well as the resulting challenges and quality expectations. The results shed light on the conundrum of addressing societal issues while being part of the subject matter.

Social Sciences and Humanities Knowledge as Cohesion Knowledge

The societal issues that SSH disciplines relate to are broad and transcend disciplinary couplings. The quasi ubiquity of SSH impact areas resonates with recent research findings (e.g., Bastow et al., 2014 ). The roles ascribed to SSH disciplines in addressing societal problems are likewise diverse and range from more instrumental tasks, such as informing a policy decision, to more contextualizing activities, such as explaining the social implications of a problem. The latter resonates with Stehr and Ruser’s (2017) description of social scientists as “meaning producers,” i.e., their knowledge does not focus on practical choices but on processes of meaning, which may give rise to decisions. In addition, we find evidence of a more counterintuitive role for SSH disciplines in addressing societal challenges, namely critiquing the definition of a problem and the envisaged solution. This finding resonates with Burchell (2009) who proposes that, from a societal perspective, the social sciences might best be interpreted as a “critical friend” (see also Davies et al., 2008 ). Participants in the consultation describe the relevance of this critical capacity, for instance, in discussing the social, cultural, and psychological implications of the Covid-19 pandemic, which some feel have not been sufficiently considered in policy decisions.

Along with these roles, we identified different types of knowledge that SSH disciplines can provide to help resolve societal challenges. These range from overview and system knowledge, as described by Becker (2002) , to instrumental knowledge ( Fähnrich and Lü ; Stehr and Ruser, 2017 ) like the kind that is used to inform political decision-making processes. This differentiation resonates with ( Weiss, 1980 ) who suggests that the contributions of SSH research to decision-making processes are much wider than a narrow idea of knowledge utilization suggests. Moreover, “critical knowledge,” i.e., knowledge that enables us to question societal decisions, appears to be an essential contribution of SSH disciplines to societal issues. This positions SSH researchers as a critical corrective in addition to its contextualizing and co-creating capacity. At a higher level of abstraction, we observe that SSH disciplines are rarely associated with “transformative knowledge” that causes change ( Becker, 2002 ) but instead with knowledge that helps us anticipate societal transformations and to deal with change (see also Sigurðarson, 2020 ). We refer to this kind of knowledge as “cohesion knowledge.”

Continuous Boundary Work

In the scholarly debate, dialogue between representatives from both science and society is understood as a condition for “socially robust” knowledge, i.e., knowledge that is both scientifically robust and socially useful ( Nowotny et al., 2001 ). Consequently, we conceptualize interaction as a prerequisite for societal impact (see also Spaapen and van Drooge, 2011 ). This motivated us to interrogate challenges in interactive and problem-oriented settings involving SSH disciplines. The challenges we identify can be categorized as translational, institutional, epistemic, and uptake challenges, and they thus correspond roughly to the framework suggested by Jahn et al. (2012) . While many of the challenges we identified point to contingent issues, some results stand out.

When it comes to translation, reducing linguistic complexity without being accused of triviality and commonplace hypotheses is a core challenge for SSH disciplines. Some of the societal stakeholders in the consultation describe SSH disciplines as self-referential and the language used as unnecessarily complicated at times. Bridging the “social gap” ( Maasen and Lieven 2006 ) between science and society thus means that SSH scholars must adapt their language (e.g., their use of terms), although at the risk of compromising their epistemic authority. A problem-oriented interaction with societal stakeholders, however, might contribute to increased “methodological efficiency” as a form of continuous external validation ( Woolgar, 2000 ). Regarding institutional challenges, we find initial evidence for a structural disadvantage of SSH disciplines. This might be explained with reference to the fact that the established entrepreneurial heuristic of societal impact carries little significance for SSH disciplines ( Benneworth and Olmos-Peñuela, 2018 ). Epistemic challenges mostly concern the heterogeneity of SSH disciplines and their approaches, intermittently conflicting paradigms, and the dynamic object of study, i.e., society as a moving target ( Dayé, 2014 ). It follows that SSH disciplines produce knowledge that is highly context-dependent, situated, and dynamic ( Gattone, 2012 ; Fähnrich and Lüthje, 2017 ). Hence, there are serious limitations regarding the extent to which objective, stable, and context-independent knowledge can be expected from SSH disciplines ( Davies et al., 2008 ). This finding is consistent with the self-conception of many SSH disciplines as critical, reflective, and contextual. When it comes to the uptake of SSH knowledge, the consulted representatives note how SSH expertise is not always fully appreciated and may explain to a certain extent the lack of appreciation for SSH research. For example, in the consultation, SSH research is often contrasted with natural science and technical disciplines, whose results are not only perceived as more stable but often as more exciting, too. This resonates with Knudsen (2017) , who found a deficit framing for the humanities in Danish print media. Cassidy (2014) explains this lack of appreciation with the close relationship of SSH disciplines to everyday life: “Unlike most natural sciences, where the specialist training, knowledge and equipment of scientists grants them largely uncontested expertise, social scientists’ expertise is often about matters of everyday experience and common-sense knowledge” (p. 190).

Taken together, these challenges suggest a twofold implication: The calls for more resources and recognition are on the one hand contingent issues that can give impulses to the governance of science. On the other hand, our results illustrate how the position of the SSH in society is a matter of ongoing negotiations. The identified challenges show how the SSH are caught up in boundary work in their interactions with extra-academic fields ( Gieryn, 1983 ). They speak of troubles of SSH researchers to claim their authority, which is linked to epistemic dynamics, that find expression in language usage, specific temporalities and context-specific results. How the SSH position themselves towards their moving target, the society, becomes even more of a challenge in collaborative formats.

Contextual Quality Configurations

Our empirical findings indicate a three-dimensional framework for ensuring quality in collaborative arrangements involving SSH researchers and societal stakeholders. The first is process-related and describes the expectations of the exchange itself. The second is person-related and describes the expectations towards the people involved. The third is outcome-oriented and includes the expectations of the outcome. In collaborative settings, there will most likely be contradictory expectations of what entitles persons to participate, how interacting partners should behave, and what constitutes relevant knowledge (see also Kropp and Wagner, 2010 ). This leads to conflicts between different expectations of quality that are difficult to avoid, for instance between disinterestedness and empathy, but also within categories, for instance, regarding different understandings of relevance (e.g., how can scientific demands for relevance be reconciled with demands for utility?). At times, the participants in the consultation offer solutions to these conflicts between quality expectations, for instance when they say that there are conditions for participation in the interaction such as having a basic understanding of the other interaction partner. This is in line with Bromme’s (2020) concept of “informed trust,” according to which it needs not only trust in public scientific statements but also knowledge on the system of science to make an informed judgement. Our findings add a nuance to this hypothesis by suggesting that informed trust must be reciprocal, i.e., researchers participating in a dialogue must also understand the societal stakeholders they engage with.

Generally, we can safely assume that the more diverse and complex the setting for a dialogue is, the more difficult it may be to document expertise and to establish transparency. If being affected by an issue legitimizes participation in a dialogue, then it may be more difficult to enforce pertinence as a premise. If expertise legitimizes participation, there is also a risk of exceeding the level of fact. It follows that there must be legitimate reasons for trade-offs between different quality expectations. These should depend on the aim of the interaction, the individuals involved, and the chosen interaction format. It follows that quality expectations in collaborative settings should not be understood universally, unilaterally, and statically. Instead, they should be considered within their specific context, reciprocally, and dynamically. Hence, we propose that quality itself must be an object of these interactions, i.e., there should ideally be deliberation about the appropriate quality configuration for the problem at hand. This could be particularly relevant for SSH disciplines, which, as discussed above, have to engage in continuous boundary work due to their position in society. The outline of a quality framework as proposed here can be a basis for deliberating on the quality of these arrangements. That said, for particularly established forms of interaction (e.g., scientific policy advice), there may already be recognized default settings from which it is possible to extrapolate.

Our results show, that the societal impact of SSH disciplines can be counterintuitive and precisely not aimed at solving a problem. Instead, they often seek to challenge both the problem and its solution. Nor does SSH research necessarily strive for transformation but instead seeks an understanding and a moderation of social change. Therefore, the impact of the SSH is often discreet, indirect, and conceptual. Thus, the quality of the societal impact of SSH disciplines can only be understood in relation to their specific context, in the sense that it is person-, problem-, and time-dependent and must take into account different field logics as it takes place in a “space between fields” ( Williams, 2020 ). For these reasons, a rigid, purely quantitative assessment of societal impact of SSH disciplines should generally be avoided, especially with regard to how assessment shapes and stabilizes underlying values ( Espeland and Sauder, 2007 ; Williams, 2020 ).

Our results provide some arguments for so-called formative evaluations of the societal impact of SSH disciplines. Formative evaluations focus on the process (e.g., an interaction, a program, or a project) while the activities are ongoing. They are geared towards learning and goal adjustment. The SIAMPI approach ( Spaapen and van Drooge, 2011 ) as well as the Agora model ( Frederiksen et al., 2003 ; Barré, 2010 ) or Public Value Mapping ( Bozeman and Sarewitz, 2011 ) are promising examples of such formative assessment concepts. Using the concept of “productive interactions,” the SIAMPI approach focuses on the individual’s contributions to an interaction rather than reactively assessing its outputs. With its emphasis on productivity however, it cannot capture the counterintuitive contributions outlined above, which do not focus on the solution to a problem but instead question the problem.

Nonetheless, this at times counterintuitive impact of SSH disciplines may not be suitable for evaluation at all. Instead, it might imply that additional measures such as capacity building are needed to support the interaction between science and society ( Sigurðarson, 2020 ). The integration of science communication, and with it the reflection on boundaries, must become an integral part of science education. This is underlined by the trend towards public legitimation of research funds and a new social contract for science not as hasty obedience to a political desire but as a basis for an informed discussion of perspectives and implications. In that sense, it seems reasonable to reflect on and gain a more nuanced understanding of the societal impact of SSH disciplines within research communities and learned societies.

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

All authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content, including participation in the concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of the manuscript. BF supervised, carried out the analysis, editing and data collection together with FK. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

This study was carried out with funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (under grant numbers 01PW18008A and 01PW18008B BMBF).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

• Albæk E. (1995). Between Knowledge and Power: Utilization of Social Science in Public Policy Making . Policy Sci 28 , 79–100. 10.1007/BF01000821 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alvesson M., Gabriel Y., Paulsen R. (2017). Return to Meaning: A Social Science with Something to Say . First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198787099.001.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amara N., Ouimet M., Landry R. (2004). New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies . Sci. Commun. 26 , 75–106. 10.1177/1075547004267491 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barré R. (2010). Towards Socially Robust S&T Indicators: Indicators as Debatable Devices, Enabling Collective Learning . Res. Eval. 19 , 227–231. 10.3152/095820210X512069 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bastow S., Dunleavy P., Tinkler J. (2014). The Impact of the Social Sciences: How Academics and Their Research Make a Difference. Los Angeles; London; New Delhi; Singapore . Washington, D.C: SAGE. 10.4135/9781473921511 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker E. (2002). Transformations of Social and Ecological Issues into Transdisciplinary Research . Knowl. Sustain. Dev. Insight Encycl. Life Support. Syst. 3 , 949–963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benneworth P., Olmos-Peñuela J. (2018). Reflecting on the Tensions of Research Utilization: Understanding the Coupling of Academic and User Knowledge . Sci. Public Pol. 45 , 764–774. 10.1093/scipol/scy021 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benneworth P. (2015). Tracing How Arts and Humanities Research Translates, Circulates and Consolidates in society. How Have Scholars Been Reacting to Diverse Impact and Public Value agendas?How Have Scholars Been Reacting to Diverse Impact and Public Value Agendas? Arts Humanities Higher Edu. 14 , 45–60. 10.1177/1474022214533888 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• BMBF (2019). Grundsatzpapier des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung zur Wissenschaftskommunikation . Berlin: Federal Ministry of Education and Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bornmann L. (2013). What Is Societal Impact of Research and How Can it Be Assessed? a Literature Survey . J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec 64 , 217–233. 10.1002/asi.22803 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bozeman B., Sarewitz D. (2011). Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation . Minerva 49 , 1–23. 10.1007/s11024-011-9161-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bromme R. (2020). “ Informiertes Vertrauen: Eine psychologische Perspektive auf Vertrauen in Wissenschaft ,” in Wissenschaftsreflexion . Editors Jungert M., Frewer A., Mayr E. (Brill | mentis; ), 105–134. 10.30965/9783957437372_006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bucchi M. (2008). “ Of Deficits, Deviations and Dialogues. Theories of Public Communication of Science ,” in Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology . Editors Bucchi M., Trench B. (London; New York: Routledge; ), 57–76. Available at: http://site.ebrary.com/id/10236333 (Accessed April 13, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Burchell K. (2009). A Helping Hand or a Servant Discipline? Sci. Technol. Innov. Stud. 5 , 49–61. 10.17877/DE290R-970 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy A. (2014). “ Communicating the Social Sciences: a Specific Challenge? ,” in In Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology . Editors Bucchi M., Trench B. (London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; ), 186–197. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies H., Nutley S., Walter I. (2008). Why 'knowledge Transfer' Is Misconceived for Applied Social Research . J. Health Serv. Res. Pol. 13 , 188–190. 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008055 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies S., McCallie E., Simonsson E., Lehr J. L., Duensing S. (2009). Discussing Dialogue: Perspectives on the Value of Science Dialogue Events that Do Not Inform Policy . Public Underst. Sci. 18 , 338–353. 10.1177/0963662507079760 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dayé C. (2014). Visions of a Field . Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 39 , 877–891. 10.1177/0162243914538323 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espeland W. N., Sauder M. (2007). Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds . Am. J. Sociolo. 113 , 1–40. 10.1086/517897 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fähnrich B., Lüthje C. (2017). Roles of Social Scientists in Crisis Media Reporting: The Case of the German Populist Radical Right Movement PEGIDA . Sci. Commun. 39 , 415–442. 10.1177/1075547017715472 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fecher B., Hebing M. (2021). How Do Researchers Achieve Societal Impact? Results of an Empirical Survey Among Researchers in Germany . Berlin: SSOAR; Available at: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/71327 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Frederiksen L. F., Hansson F., Wenneberg S. B. (2003). The Agora and the Role of Research Evaluation . Evaluation 9 , 149–172. 10.1177/1356389003009002003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funtowicz S. O., Ravetz R. (1992). “ Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of post-normal Science ,” in Social Theories of Risk (Praeger; ), 251–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gattone C. F. (2012). The Social Scientist as Public Intellectual in an Age of Mass Media . Int. J. Polit. Cult. Soc. 25 , 175–186. 10.1007/s10767-012-9128-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geuna A., Martin B. R. (2003). University Research Evaluation and Funding: An International Comparison . Minerva 41 , 277–304. 10.1023/B:MINE.0000005155.70870.bd [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schartzmann S., Scott P. B., Trow M. (1994). in The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London (Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications; ). 10.4135/9781446221853 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gieryn T. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists . Am. Sociological Rev. 48 , 781. 10.2307/2095325 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Healy K. (2017). Fuck Nuance . Sociological Theor. 35 , 118–127. 10.1177/0735275117709046 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobson N., Butterill D., Goering P. (2004). Organizational Factors that Influence University-Based Researchers' Engagement in Knowledge Transfer Activities . Sci. Commun. 25 , 246–259. 10.1177/1075547003262038 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jahn T., Bergmann M., Keil F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between Mainstreaming and Marginalization . Ecol. Econ. 79 , 1–10. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knudsen S. (2017). Thinking inside the Frame: A Framing Analysis of the Humanities in Danish Print News media . Public Underst. Sci. 26 , 908–924. 10.1177/0963662517693452 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kropp C., Wagner J. (2010). Knowledge on Stage: Scientific Policy Advice . Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 35 , 812–838. 10.1177/0162243909357912 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuckartz U. (2014). Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software . Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leydesdorff L., Etzkowitz H. (1998). The Triple Helix as a Model for Innovation Studies . Sci. Public Pol. 25 , 195–203. 10.1093/spp/25.3.195 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maasen S., Lieven O. (2006). Transdisciplinarity: a New Mode of Governing Science? Sci. Public Pol. 33 , 399–410. 10.3152/147154306781778803 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marcinkowski F., Kohring M., Fürst S., Friedrichsmeier A. (2014). Organizational Influence on Scientists' Efforts to Go Public . Sci. Commun. 36 , 56–80. 10.1177/1075547013494022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayring P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis . Forum Qual. Sozialforschung Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 1; Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089 . (Accessed August 20, 2015). [ Google Scholar ]
• Meagher L., Lyall C., Nutley S. (2008). Flows of Knowledge, Expertise and Influence: a Method for Assessing Policy and Practice Impacts from Social Science Research . Res. Eval. 17 , 163–173. 10.3152/095820208X331720 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merton R. K. (1973). “ The Normative Structure of Science ,” in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Incvestigations (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr; ), 267–278. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitroff I. I. (1974). Norms and Counter-norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists . Am. Sociological Rev. 39 , 579. 10.2307/2094423 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molas-Gallart J., Tang P. (2011). Tracing “productive Interactions” to Identify Social Impacts: an Example from the Social Sciences . Res. Eval. 20 , 219–226. 10.3152/095820211X12941371876706 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowotny H., Scott P. B., Gibbons M. (Editors) (2001). Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty . London: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ochsner M., Hug S., Galleron I. (2017). The Future of Research Assessment in the Humanities: Bottom-Up Assessment Procedures . Palgrave Commun. 3 , 17020. 10.1057/palcomms.2017.20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olmos-Peñuela J., Benneworth P., Castro-Martínez E. (2015). Are Sciences Essential and Humanities Elective? Disentangling Competing Claims for Humanities' Research Public Value . Arts Humanities Higher Edu. 14 , 61–78. 10.1177/1474022214534081 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters H. P. (2013). Gap between Science and media Revisited: Scientists as Public Communicators . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110 , 14102–14109. 10.1073/pnas.1212745110 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reale E., Avramov D., Canhial K., Donovan C., Flecha R., Holm P., et al. (2018). A Review of Literature on Evaluating the Scientific, Social and Political Impact of Social Sciences and Humanities Research . Res. Eval. 27 , 298–308. 10.1093/reseval/rvx025 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reincke C. M., Bredenoord A. L., van Mil M. H. (2020). From Deficit to Dialogue in Science Communication . EMBO Rep. 21 , E51278. 10.15252/embr.202051278 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rögener W., Wormer H. (2017). Defining Criteria for Good Environmental Journalism and Testing Their Applicability: An Environmental News Review as a First Step to More Evidence Based Environmental Science Reporting . Public Underst. Sci. 26 , 418–433. 10.1177/0963662515597195 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Secko D. M., Amend E., Friday T. (2013). Four Models of Science Journalism . Journalism Pract. 7 , 62–80. 10.1080/17512786.2012.691351 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sigurðarson E. S. (2020). Capacities, Capabilities, and the Societal Impact of the Humanities . Res. Eval. 29 , 71–76. 10.1093/reseval/rvz031 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sörlin S. (2018). Humanities of Transformation: From Crisis and Critique towards the Emerging Integrative Humanities . Res. Eval. 27 , 287–297. 10.1093/reseval/rvx030 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spaapen J., van Drooge L. (2011). Introducing “Productive Interactions” in Social Impact Assessment . Res. Eval. 20 , 211–218. 10.3152/095820211X12941371876742 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Star S. L., Griesemer J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 . Soc. Stud. Sci. 19 , 387–420. 10.1177/030631289019003001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stehr N., Ruser A. (2017). Social Scientists as Technicians, Advisors and Meaning Producers . Innovation: Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 30 , 24–35. 10.1080/13511610.2016.1207505 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Meulen B., Rip A. (2000). Evaluation of Societal Quality of Public Sector Research in the Netherlands . Res. Eval. 9 , 11–25. 10.3152/147154400781777449 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weiss C. H. (1980). Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion . Knowledge 1 , 381–404. 10.1177/107554708000100303 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams K. (2020). Playing the fields: Theorizing Research Impact and its Assessment . Res. Eval. 29 , 191–202. 10.1093/reseval/rvaa001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woolgar S. (2000). Social Basis of Interactive Social Science . Sci. Pub. Pol. 27 , 165–173. 10.3152/147154300781782039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

share this!

May 17, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

The tentacles of retracted science reach deep into social media: A simple button could change that

by University of Sydney

In 1998, a paper linking childhood vaccines with autism was published in the journal, The Lancet , only to be retracted in 2010 when the science was debunked.

Fourteen years since its retraction, the paper's original claim continues to flourish on social media, fueling misinformation and disinformation around vaccine safety and efficacy.

A University of Sydney team is hoping to help social media users identify posts featuring misinformation and disinformation arising from now-debunked science. They have developed and tested a new interface that helps users discover further information about potentially fraught claims on social media.

The study is published in the journal Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction .

They created and tested the efficacy of adding a "more information" button to social media posts . The button links to a drop down which allows users to see more details about claims or information in news posts, including information on whether that news is based on retracted science. The researchers say social media platforms could use an algorithm to link posts to details of retracted science.

Testing of the interface among a group of participants showed that when people understand the idea of retraction and can easily find when health news is based on a claim from retracted research, it can help reduce the impact and spread of misinformation as they are less likely to share it.

"Knowledge is power," said Professor Judy Kay from the School of Computer Science who led the research. "During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, myths around the efficacy and safety of vaccines abounded. We want to help people to better understand when science has been debunked or challenged so they can make informed decisions about their health," she said.

"The ability to read and properly interpret often complex scientific papers is a very niche skill—not everybody has that literacy or is up to date on the latest science. Many people would have seen posts about now-debunked vaccine research and thought: 'It was published in a medical journal, so it must be true.' Sadly, that isn't the case for retracted publications."

"Social media platforms could do much better than they do now," said co-author and Ph.D. student Waheeb Yaqub. "During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, myths around the efficacy and safety of vaccines spread like wildfire."

"Our approach shows that when people understand the idea of retraction and can find when health news is based on a retracted science article, it can reduce the impact and spread of misinformation," he said.

Tool boosts literacy of processes behind scientific research

The research was conducted with 44 participants who started with little or no understanding of scientific retraction. After completing a five-minute tutorial, they rated how various reasons for retraction make a paper's findings invalid.

The researchers then studied how participants used the "More Information" button. They found the new information altered the participants' beliefs on three health claims based on retracted papers shared on social media.

These claims were: whether masks are effective in limiting the spread of coronavirus; that the Mediterranean diet is effective in reducing heart disease ; and snacking while watching an action movie leads to overeating.

The first claim was based on two papers, one which had been retracted and one which hadn't. The other two claims were based on retracted papers. The researchers specifically chose papers of which participants would have differing knowledge.

"Participants confidently considered masks were effective. Most didn't know about the Mediterranean diet and so were unsure about whether it was true. Many people whose personal experience of snacking during films made them believe it was true."

The button influenced participants when they knew little about a topic to begin with. When the participants discovered the post was based on a retracted paper, they were less likely to like or share it.

On social media, both misinformation (the inadvertent spread of false information) and disinformation (false information deliberately spread with malicious intent), are rising.

Papers can be retracted when problems with methodology, results or experiments are found.

The researchers say it would be feasible for social media platforms to develop back-end software that links databases of retracted papers.

"If social media platforms want to maintain their quality and integrity, they should look to implement simple methods like ours," Professor Kay said.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

AI chips could get a sense of time with memristor that can be tuned

9 minutes ago

Using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to design safer, higher-performance lithium batteries

2 hours ago

New, electricity-free desalination method shows promise

4 hours ago

Electronics engineers successfully integrate MoS₂ transistors on a 200 mm wafer

6 hours ago

Can we rid artificial intelligence of bias?

May 19, 2024

Q&A: Model disgorgement—the key to fixing AI bias and copyright infringement?

Sun, sustainability, and silicon: A double dose of solar fuel research

Floating photovoltaics could limit Africa's future reliance on hydro-generated energy

Orphan articles: The 'dark matter' of Wikipedia

Researchers find LLMs are easy to manipulate into giving harmful information

Related stories.

Flawed research not retracted fast enough to prevent spread of misinformation, study finds

Jun 15, 2022

Retracted scientific paper persists in new citations, study finds

Jan 5, 2021

Social media 'trust' or 'distrust' buttons could reduce spread of misinformation

Jun 6, 2023

Flawed scientific papers fueling COVID-19 misinformation

Jul 30, 2021

Stemming the spread of misinformation on social media

Jul 2, 2020

Understanding how news works can short-circuit the connection between social media use and vaccine hesitancy

Nov 3, 2022

Recommended for you

New browser extension empowers users to fight online misinformation

May 16, 2024

Managing screen time by making phones slightly more annoying to use

May 14, 2024

Google unleashes AI in search, raising hopes for better results and fears about less web traffic

Researchers develop a biomechanical dataset for badminton performance analysis

May 6, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Tech Xplore in any form.

Your Privacy

This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, collect data for ads personalisation and provide content from third parties. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use .

E-mail newsletter