scholarly journals Use of Web 2.0 Social Networking Sites for Collaborative Sharing Research Information by the Social Science Research Scholars at Alagappa University, Karaikudi.

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 70-74
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Web 2.0 ◽  
Social Networking ◽  
Social Networking Sites ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Information ◽  
The Social ◽  
Strongly Agree

This study attempts to the Web 2.0 Social Networking Sites for Collaborative Sharing Research Information by the Social Science Research Scholars at Alagappa University, Karaikudi. A sample size 97 Scholars was selected by random sampling method. The data required for the study were collected through a questionnaire. The findings of the study: 30.9% of the respondents using Facebook/ WhatsApp along with most highly used in the popular web browser used for Google chrome 72.2% Google chrome. 48.5% of respondents’ preference of “Very Strongly Agree” Collaborate with Research projects and Teams. Whereas 46.4% “Research Collaboration “Strongly agree” of the respondents respectively. 30.9% purpose of Web 2.0 for Collaborations of Research Communication while 19.6% Opportunities and Learning for Web 2.0 tools support social interaction in the learning process of the respondents respectively.

scholarly journals Erasing the Social from Social Science: The Intellectual Costs of Boundary-Work and the Canadian Institute of Health Research

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katelin E. Albert
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Boundary Work ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Canadian Institute ◽  
The Social

In 2009, Canadian social science research funding underwent a transition. Social science health-research was shifted from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), an agency previously dominated by natural and medical science. This paper examines the role of health-research funding structures in legitimizing and/or delimiting what counts as ‘good’ social science health research. Engaging Gieryn’s (1983) notion of ‘boundary-work’ and interviews with qualitative social science graduate students, it investigates how applicants developed proposals for CIHR. Findings show that despite claiming to be interdisciplinary, the practical mechanisms through which CIHR funding is distributed reinforce rigid boundaries of what counts as legitimate health research. These boundaries are reinforced by applicants who felt pressure to prioritize what they perceived was what funders wanted (accommodating natural-science research culture), resulting in erased, elided, and disguised social science theories and methods common for ‘good social science.’

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document