Social Science Research at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

1980 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 416-418
Author(s):  
Judith Ayres Daly
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Advanced Research Projects Agency

The purpose of this paper is to communicate, a la Dawson (1978) and Frey (1980) the what and how of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency/Cybernetics Technology Division's (DARPA/CTD) social science research funding. It is hoped that it will make some, who may have asked “What's a DARPA?” while perusing the Table of Contents, aware of another possible funding source and will enhance the relevance to the DARPA mission of proposals received by the Division.

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.’

Rebraiding Photovoice: Methodological Métissage at the Cultural Interface

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Higgins
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Standpoint Theory ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Visual Research ◽  
Cultural Interface

Photovoice, the most prevalent participatory visual research methodology utilised within social science research, has begun making its way into Indigenous contexts in light of its critical and pedagogical potential. However, this potential is not always actualised as the assumptions that undergird photovoice are often the same ones that (re)produce inequalities. Working from the notion that methodologies are the space in between theory, methods, and ethics, this manuscript works with/in the cultural interface between the Western theories that shape photovoice (i.e., standpoint theory, praxis) and Indigenous analogues (i.e., Nakata's [2007a, 2007b] Indigenous standpoint theory, Grande's [2004, 2008] Red pedagogy) in order to differentially (re)braid photovoice. Following a thumbnail description of these four bodies of scholarship, a concept key to photovoice (i.e., voice) is differentially configured with, in, and for the cultural interface to provide research considerations for various stages of participatory visual research projects (i.e., fieldwork, analysis, dissemination).

scholarly journals Can the Other be Heard? Response to Commentaries on ‘Omphile and his Soccer Ball’

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Finex Ndhlovu
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Critical Points ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The Other ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Soccer Ball

I welcome the invitation to a right of reply that Multilingual Margins journal has extended to me; and I thank all nine discussants for sharing their thoughts on my paper ‘Omphile and his soccer ball: Colonialism, methodology, translanguaging research’. Eight of the nine discussants (Kathleen Heugh, Alan Carneiro, Manuel Guissemo, Kanavillil Rajagopalan, Zannie Bock, Lynn Mario T. Mendezes de Sousa, Nana Aba Appiah Amfo, and Torun Reite) provided what I consider to be balanced critiques that highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. One reader, Don Kulick, did not find anything positive about the paper. Instead, he raised numerable objections that are pitched in a somewhat confrontational tone that is radically at odds with the views proffered by all other discussants. For this reason, I decided to organise my response into three short sections. The first is a rejoinder that builds on and engages those critical points raised by the eight discussants who are overall in concert with each other. In the second section I provide a rebuttal of Don Kulick’s review, which I find to be largely dismissive and bereft of any semblance of collegial engagement with the arguments advanced in the paper. I then close with a short paragraph that reiterates my original invitation to engage in dialectical conversations about how best to carry out social science research projects in ways that are consistent with the quite contemporary anti-colonial, anti-foundational and transformative agenda being pushed by decolonial and other like-minded scholars.

scholarly journals Shifting Ideologics of Research Funding: The CPC's National Planning Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heike Holbig
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Academic Collaboration ◽  
Official Discourse ◽  
The Past ◽  
National Planning ◽  
Planning Office

For more than two decades, the National Planning Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences (NPOPSS) has been managing official funding of social science research in China under the orbit of the Communist Party of China's (CPC) propaganda system. By focusing on “Major Projects”, the most prestigious and well-funded program initiated by the NPOPSS in 2004, this contribution outlines the political and institutional ramifications of this line of official funding and attempts to identify larger shifts during the past decade in the “ideologics” of official social science research funding – the changing ideological circumscriptions of research agendas in the more narrow sense of echoing party theory and rhetoric and – in the broader sense – of adapting to an increasingly dominant official discourse of cultural and national self-assertion. To conclude, this article offers reflections on the potential repercussions of these shifts for international academic collaboration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document