IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v2y1997i3p69-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Users and Social Science Research: Policy, Problems and Possibilities

Author

Listed:
  • B. Rappert

Abstract

Recent times have seen a significant reorientation in public funding for academic research across many countries. Public bodies in the UK have been at the forefront of such activities, typically justified in terms of a need to meet the challenges of international competitiveness and improve quality of life. One set of mechanisms advanced for further achieving these goals is the incorporation of users’ needs into various aspects of the research process. This paper examines some of the consequences of greater user involvement in the UK Economic and Social Research Council by drawing on both empirical evidence and more speculative argumentation. In doing so it poses some of the dilemmas for conceptualizing proper user involvement.

Suggested Citation

  • B. Rappert, 1997. "Users and Social Science Research: Policy, Problems and Possibilities," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(3), pages 69-81, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:2:y:1997:i:3:p:69-81
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.109
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.109?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Hammersley & R. Gomm, 1997. "Bias in Social Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(1), pages 7-19, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Landry, Rejean & Amara, Nabil & Lamari, Moktar, 2001. "Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 333-349, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert Hollands & Liz Stanley, 2009. "Rethinking ‘Current Crisis’ Arguments: Gouldner and the Legacy of Critical Sociology," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(1), pages 13-25, January.
    2. N. Romm, 1997. "Becoming More Accountable: A Comment on Hammersley and Gomm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(3), pages 129-136, September.
    3. B. Temple, 1997. "‘Collegial Accountability’ and Bias: The Solution or the Problem?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 8-14, December.
    4. Martyn Hammersley, 1999. "Sociology, What's it for? A Critique of Gouldner," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 4(3), pages 113-121, September.
    5. John Stephen Mckenzie, 2017. "Emotional Reflexivity and the Guiding Principle of Objectivity in an Inter-Disciplinary, Multi-Method, Longitudinal Research Project," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 22(1), pages 68-80, February.
    6. M. Hammersley, 1997. "A Reply to Humphries," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 51-54, December.
    7. M. Hammersley & R. Gomm, 1997. "A Response to Romm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 86-88, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:2:y:1997:i:3:p:69-81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.