Re-use of research data in the social sciences. Use and users of digital data archive.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the re-use of research data deposited in digital data archive in the social sciences. The study examines the quantity, type, and purpose of data downloads by analyzing enriched user log data collected from Swiss data archive. The findings show that quantitative datasets are downloaded increasingly from the digital archive and that downloads focus heavily on a small share of the datasets. The most frequently downloaded datasets are survey datasets collected by research organizations offering possibilities for longitudinal studies. Users typically download only one dataset, but a group of heavy downloaders form a remarkable share of all downloads. The main user group downloading data from the archive are students who use the data in their studies. Furthermore, datasets downloaded for research purposes often, but not always, serve to be used in scholarly publications. Enriched log data from data archives offer an interesting macro level perspective on the use and users of the services and help understanding the increasing role of repositories in the social sciences. The study provides insights into the potential of collecting and using log data for studying and evaluating data archive use.

Where exactly do the social and behavioural sciences fit in One Health?

At its core, One Health promotes multidisciplinary cooperation amongst researchers and practitioners to improve the effectiveness and management of complex problems raised by the interplay of human, animal and environment interactions. Contemporary One Health literature has identified reducing disciplinary barriers as key to progress in the field, along with addressing the notable absence of social sciences from One Health frameworks, among other priorities. Efforts to position social scientists as experts on behaviour change and health decision-making has helped to articulate a concrete role for progressing One Health collaborations. Yet, there are other equally valuable functions the social scientist has in understanding complex systems, like One Health. We make explicit the multiple and diverse knowledge contributions the social sciences and humanities can make to progressing the One Health agenda. Articulating these more clearly invites a broader set of interdisciplinary perspectives to One Health discussions, allowing for stronger connections between sectors, actors, disciplines, and sub-systems. This perspective piece identifies a range of entry points for researchers and practitioners to better utilize the potential contributions social sciences and humanities scholars can make to One Health goals.

Can Generative AI improve social science?

Generative AI that can produce realistic text, images, and other human-like outputs is currently transforming many different industries. Yet it is not yet known how such tools might influence social science research. I argue Generative AI has the potential to improve survey research, online experiments, automated content analyses, agent-based models, and other techniques commonly used to study human behavior. In the second section of this article, I discuss the many limitations of Generative. I examine how bias in the data used to train these tools can negatively impact social science research-as well as a range of other challenges related to ethics, replication, environmental impact, and the proliferation of low-quality research. I conclude by arguing that social scientists can address many of these limitations by creating open-source infrastructure for research on human behavior. Such infrastructure is not only necessary to ensure broad access to high-quality research tools, I argue, but also because the progress of AI will require deeper understanding of the social forces that guide human behavior.

Population decline: where demography, social science, and biology intersect.

In brief: Over the past half century, the world has witnessed an unprecedented decline in human fertility rates. This analysis reviews the various socioeconomic, cultural, and biological factors involved in driving this change and considers whether low fertility rates are a temporary or permanent feature of our future demographic profile. Abstract: Since the early 1960s, the world has witnessed the spectacular collapse of human fertility. As a result of this phenomenon, several countries are already seeing their population numbers fall and more will follow in the coming decades. The causes of this fertility decline involve a complex interplay of socio-economic, environmental, and biological factors that have converged to constrain fertility in posterity's wake. Since large numbers of offspring are no longer needed to compensate for high infant mortality in contemporary society, couples have opted to have small families in a quality-over-quantity investment in their progeny's future. Simultaneously, increases in female education, the enhanced participation of women in the paid workforce, and a resultant delay in childbearing has placed limits on achievable family size. Progressive urbanization, the improved availability of contraceptives, and the socio-economic pressures experienced by young adults in ageing societies are also contributing to fertility's demise. These factors, together with the individualism that pervades modern society and the increasing social acceptability of voluntary childlessness, have firmly established a low fertility ethos in most post-transition countries. Since none of these forces are about to relent, it looks as if extremely low fertility might be with us for some time to come. This may have long-term consequences. The lack of selection pressure on high fertility genotypes, the ability of ART to retain poor fertility genotypes within the population, and sustained exposure to reproductive toxicants in modern industrialized environments may all contrive to leave a permanent mark on the fecundity of our species.

The long-term expansion and recession of human populations.

Over the last 12,000 y, human populations have expanded and transformed critical earth systems. Yet, a key unresolved question in the environmental and social sciences remains: Why did human populations grow and, sometimes, decline in the first place? Our research builds on 20 y of archaeological research studying the deep time dynamics of human populations to propose an explanation for the long-term growth and stability of human populations. Innovations in the productive capacity of populations fuels exponential-like growth over thousands of years; however, innovations saturate over time and, often, may leave populations vulnerable to large recessions in their well-being and population density. Empirically, we find a trade-off between changes in land use that increase the production and consumption of carbohydrates, driving repeated waves of population growth over thousands of years, and the susceptibility of populations to large recessions due to a lag in the impact of humans on resources. These results shed light on the long-term drivers of human population growth and decline.

Exposing omitted moderators: Explaining why effect sizes differ in the social sciences.

Policymakers increasingly rely on behavioral science in response to global challenges, such as climate change or global health crises. But applications of behavioral science face an important problem: Interventions often exert substantially different effects across contexts and individuals. We examine this heterogeneity for different paradigms that underlie many behavioral interventions. We study the paradigms in a series of five preregistered studies across one in-person and 10 online panels, with over 11,000 respondents in total. We find substantial heterogeneity across settings and paradigms, apply techniques for modeling the heterogeneity, and introduce a framework that measures typically omitted moderators. The framework's factors (Fluid Intelligence, Attentiveness, Crystallized Intelligence, and Experience) affect the effectiveness of many text-based interventions, producing different observed effect sizes and explaining variations across samples. Moderators are associated with effect sizes through two paths, with the intensity of the manipulation and with the effect of the manipulation directly. Our results motivate observing these moderators and provide a theoretical and empirical framework for understanding and predicting varying effect sizes in the social sciences.

Getting ahead in the social sciences: How parenthood and publishing contribute to gender gaps in academic career advancement.

How do parenthood and publishing contribute to gender gaps in academic career advancement? While extensive research examines the causes of gender disparities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers, we know much less about the factors that constrain women's advancement in the social sciences. Combining detailed career- and administrative register data on 976 Danish social scientists in Business and Management, Economics, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology (5703 person-years) that obtained a PhD degree between 2000 and 2015, we estimate gender differences in attainment of senior research positions and parse out how publication outputs, parenthood and parental leave contribute to these differences. Our approach is advantageous over previous longitudinal studies in that we track the careers and publication outputs of graduates from the outset of their PhD education and match this data with time-sensitive information on each individual's publication activities and family situation. In discrete time-event history models, we observe a ∼24 per cent female disadvantage in advancement likelihoods within the first 7 years after PhD graduation, with gender differences increasing over the observation period. A decomposition indicates that variations in publishing, parenthood and parental leave account for ∼ 40 per cent of the gender gap in career advancement, suggesting that other factors, including recruitment disparities, asymmetries in social capital and experiences of unequal treatment at work, may also constrain women's careers.

Multidisciplinary teams and social science: a patient perspective.

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are common in colorectal cancer and have been deemed important when providing care. Yet they take place outside of the patient, often with little consideration of the patient's views, goals and desires. In this paper specific examples from a patient perspective are integrated with the social science literature to provide an overview of areas of disconnect between MDT recommendations and the individual patient. The reasons for these disconnects are explored, including how MDTs relate to dyadic patient-clinician relationships, weak incorporation of patient-oriented outcomes in MDTs, poor integration of nonmedical patient information and the patient perspective and the impact of team dynamics and cognitive decision biases. Consideration of these issues should facilitate higher-quality MDT recommendations that are also more acceptable to patients.

THE 3P MODEL AND ORAL HEALTH IMPACT: DEMONSTRATING THE IMPORTANCE OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN THE FUTURE OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTISTRY.

Oral health impact or oral health related quality of life is an increasingly important and well-known metric in dental care and research. There have been recent calls for greater integration of the behavioral and social sciences into oral health research and practice, including the need for frameworks and theories to guide this work. One such framework for understanding the role of predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating biopsychosocial mechanisms in health and disease is the "3P" model. Here, the 3P model is described and applied to case examples to help understand the development and maintenance of oral health impact. Additionally, this paper outlines how this conceptualization using the 3P model and oral health impact makes way for greater integration of behavioral interventions to prevent, mitigate, or treat the negative impact that oral, craniofacial, or dental disease may have on individuals. Doing this allows for a broadening of what evidence-based dentistry means for the future and provides a roadmap going forward.

The social sciences needs more than integrative experimental designs: We need better theories.

Almaatouq et al.'s prescription for more integrative experimental designs is welcome but does not address an equally important problem: Lack of adequate theories. We highlight two features theories ought to satisfy: "Well-specified" and "grounded." We discuss the importance of these features, some positive exemplars, and the complementarity between the target article's prescriptions and improved theorizing.

Dimensional versus conceptual incommensurability in the social and behavioral sciences.

This commentary analyzes the extent to which the incommensurability problem can be resolved through the proposed alternative method of integrative experiment design. We suggest that, although one aspect of incommensurability is successfully addressed (dimensional incommensurability), the proposed design space method does not yet alleviate another major source of discontinuity, which we call conceptual incommensurability.

The miss of the framework.

The authors rightly critique existing social sciences approaches. However, they are too quick to dismiss the criticism that their proposed paradigm is atheoretical. Social and cognitive theories are indeed incommensurate, often due to the lack of a unifying framework. Without proper integration with theoretical frameworks, their proposal may merely produce a resource-intensive veneer of thoroughness without substantive improvements to understanding.

Phenomena complexity, disciplinary consensus, and experimental versus correlational research in psychological science.

The target article ignores the crucial role of correlational methods in the behavioral and social sciences. Yet such methods are often mandated by the greater complexity of the phenomena investigated. This necessity is especially conspicuous in psychological research where its position in the hierarchy of the sciences implies the need for both experimental and correlational investigations, each featuring distinct assets.

Co-production of health and social science research with vulnerable children and young people: A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The term 'care-experienced' refers to anyone who is currently in care or has been in care at any stage in their life. A complex interplay of factors leads to care-experienced children and young people (CECYP) experiencing poorer oral health and access to dental care than their peers. A rapid review of the co-production of health and social care research with vulnerable children and young people (CYP) was carried out to inform the development of a co-produced research project exploring the oral health behaviours and access to dental services of CECYP. Here, 'co-production' refers to the involvement of CYP in the planning or conduct of research with explicit roles in which they generate ideas, evidence and research outputs. AIM: To learn how to meaningfully involve vulnerable CYP in the co-production of health and social science research. OBJECTIVES: To identify: Different approaches to facilitating the engagement of vulnerable CYP in co-production of health and social science research; different activities carried out in such approaches, challenges to engaging vulnerable CYP in co-production of health and social science research and ways to overcome them and areas of best practice in relation to research co-production with vulnerable CYP. SEARCH STRATEGY: A rapid review of peer-reviewed articles was conducted in six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, SocINDEX, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science) and grey literature to identify studies that engaged vulnerable CYP in co-approaches to health and social research. MAIN RESULTS: Of 1394 documents identified in the search, 40 were included and analysed. A number of different approaches to co-production were used in the studies. The CYP was involved in a range of activities, chiefly the development of data collection tools, data collection and dissemination. Individual challenges for CYP and researchers, practical and institutional factors and ethical considerations impacted the success of co-production. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Co-production of health and social science with vulnerable CYP presents challenges to researchers and CYP calling for all to demonstrate reflexivity and awareness of biases, strengths and limitations. Used appropriately and well, co-production offers benefits to researchers and CYP and can contribute to research that reflects the needs of vulnerable CYP. Adherence to the key principles of inclusion, safeguarding, respect and well-being facilitates this approach. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of our patient and public involvement and stakeholder groups contributed to the interpretation of the review findings. This manuscript was written together with a young care leaver, Skye Boswell, who is one of the authors. She contributed to the preparation of the manuscript, reviewing the findings and their interpretation.