In this week’s fourth Spotlight on the value of social science research, we assess the final ingredient to improve UK research and innovation: why social sciences are essential to international collaboration and tackling shared global challenges.

The focus of the Academy of Social Sciences (AcSS) report Reimagining the Recipe for Research & Innovation has understandably been parochial in nature, based as it is in the UK and tackling some of the unique challenges faced by researchers operating in the UK. However, the final piece in the AcSS jigsaw in its argument for using social sciences to support STEM research looks further afield, and analyzes how social science research in general can improve collaboration and societal problems on a global scale.

There are a couple of sound contextual reasons why this argument has a strong base. Firstly, as the UK is home to some of the most highly regarded research institutions, it is well placed to offer some guidance on this aspect of research. And perhaps most importantly, with the UK having benefited from some of the more progressive higher education policies in the shape of its Research Excellence Framework (REF) and early adoption of Open Access mandates, it can offer some leadership in making recommendations for future research strategy.

Covid insights

In the AcSS report, its authors – which include Dr Juergen Wastl and Kathryn Weber-Boer from Digital Science – identify the fourth and final ingredient specifically as the ability of social sciences to enable progress through international collaboration and meeting global challenges. No global challenge has been greater in recent times than the Covid-19 pandemic, and using this example, the authors show how insights from both STEM and social science research were necessary to successfully fight the spread and control of the disease. 

We see some specific examples of this in the case study below, but to further illustrate the important role social sciences have played, the report looks at how research in all areas has supported the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Looking at how both UK researchers and those internationally have focused on these global challenges, the authors used Dimensions to identify some interesting trends (see Figure 1). For example: 

• The volume of publications is greater – and the average number of citations lower – for ‘social’ SDGs when compared with the ‘economic’ and ‘environmental’ SDGs, across all of the datasets
• For UK-authored papers, about a quarter of SDG-related publications are in the social sciences – either uniquely or in collaboration with STEM colleagues – and some three-quarters are in the STEM area
• Within each of the three main subdivisions – STEM, social science and STEM/social science – UK-authored publications have much greater citation rates than the average globally
• The biggest increase in citation rates – compared with the global average – for UK-authored papers is around double in many cases
• Collaborative studies across social science and STEM account for a minority of publications however they are among the most cited research.

Impact of impact

Perhaps one of the more remarkable findings in the AcSS study is that, when analyzing the impact studies that form part of the UK’s REF program in 2021 – where universities present the wider impacts their research has had – the social sciences show a greater contribution in most of the eight categories they are broken down into. While STEM leads in Health and Technology as one might expect, social sciences lead in Societal and Economic impacts.

No global challenge has been greater in recent times than the Covid-19 pandemic… insights from both STEM and social science research were necessary to successfully fight the spread and control of the disease.

Case study

The case study used to illustrate the influence of the social sciences in the AcSS report concerns the Covid-19 pandemic and how social sciences – not on their own and in collaboration with STEM research – helped the government and health services navigate through one of the world’s most challenging episodes.

One article they cite, published in Nature Human Behaviour in April 2020, was an early attempt by a large group of scholars to share not only their collective insights in order to enable a more effective response to the pandemic, but the gaps that were evident and needed to be filled. This collaborative response to the pandemic included advice on influencing credible community sources of information and advice on how to frame public health messaging. 

The pioneering work on drug discovery obviously played a huge part in overcoming Covid-19, but much of that great work might have been wasted had social science research not played its part in how vaccines were deployed. When we look back on this and the other three ingredients – enabling whole systems thinking, critical for good policy development and underpinning smart and responsible innovation – the Covid example is emblematic of the value that social sciences can bring. Important on their own, but vital when plugged into STEM research, collaboration and solving some of the world’s most pressing problems.

It is this collaborative approach between the social sciences and STEM research that has been one of the key aspects of the Spotlight series. From the first Spotlight on seeing a more complete picture from whole systems thinking, through to effective policy making and responsible innovation, it has been notable not so much what value can be brought through collaboration between social sciences and STEM, but what can also be lost when they don’t work in harmony. Hopefully this series and the AcSS report it has highlighted can ensure fewer wasted opportunities to make a difference in the future.

Next time

We will continue our Spotlight series next month, so please watch out for more details on Digital Science’s LinkedIn and Twitter/X accounts – as well as right here on TL;DR.

The post In the Spotlight: Social sciences’ fourth key ingredient for research success appeared first on Digital Science.

Last week’s Spotlight on social science research looked at its potential contribution to UK policy making. This week we identify the third key ingredient to improve UK research and innovation: how social sciences can underpin smart and responsible innovation.

The third ingredient in our Spotlight series on social science contribution is arguably the most easily recognizable one: that social sciences are essential to research and innovation in the area of governance, and how it should be an enabler rather than an obstacle to technological progress. 

The report on which these Spotlight pieces have been based – Reimagining the Recipe for Research & Innovation by the Academy of Social Sciences (AcSS) – identifies that the social sciences occupy a strategically vital place in their ability to enhance our understanding of human behavior, public opinion, legal systems, markets and policy. Without this understanding, the underpinning of any research and innovation program becomes much less stable.

Three’s a charm

The authors of the AcSS report – which include Dr Juergen Wastl and Kathryn Weber-Boer from Digital Science – identify the third ingredient specifically as the ability of social sciences to take on board different perspectives. For example, historical, geographical/cultural and legal perspectives all lend themselves to a wider understanding of the import and impact of technological innovation. The authors use the case of biotechnology governance to illustrate their point – some countries will regulate keenly, while others will have a more laissez faire approach, depending on contextual factors relevant to each dominant culture or nation state.

Sometimes these factors can be encapsulated in a single paper – the authors identify such an article that looks at legal implications of EU law and AI, which can spread across different areas in a way that STEM papers would struggle to achieve, and in doing so build bridges between those areas.

Active ingredient

Perhaps more than any other ingredient in this four-part series, the role social sciences play in underpinning smart and responsible innovation is perhaps the most dynamic and visible.

The authors show this by using Dimensions data: according to Dimensions, most UK research in law relating to digital health had been funded through the UK’s engineering and physical sciences public funding body. Research that had been funded in this way related to specific areas such as governance of AI and smart home security – in other words, social science research influencing and informing innovation.

More than any other ingredient… the role social sciences play in underpinning smart and responsible innovation is perhaps the most dynamic and visible.

Case study

The specific case study drawn out by the AcSS report authors concerns the hot topic of AI and how it relates to the field of robotics. Where does social science fit in here? The authors identify a specific paper which they see as emblematic of the influence social sciences can have on research and innovation.

The article in question identified an apparent incompatibility between European notions of discrimination and existing work on algorithmic and automated fairness. The article made three key arguments: EU non-discrimination law doesn’t provide a ‘static’ framework aligned with testing for discrimination in AI systems; discrimination is essentially a human behavior, and as such is difficult to identify in AI systems; setting standards of evidence might help make processes consistent, but not necessarily where judicial decisions are involved related to AI. 

More broadly, interdisciplinary research at one university has been shown to influence understanding of the impact of AI technologies on human rights, in turn helping to define human rights standards. Such impacts, where knowledge and experience embedded in social science research can support innovation and its responsible adoption, are likely to be critical as AI and other new technologies emerge.

Next time

The fourth and final ingredient is… Social sciences are essential to international collaboration and tackling shared global challenges.

The post In the Spotlight: Social sciences’ third key ingredient for research success appeared first on Digital Science.

But is there more to the report than just a clever metaphor? Below and over the next three weeks, we take a quick look at the report’s findings and, perhaps more importantly, the methodology behind the study, which used Dimensions data to understand the research landscape. Because Dimensions is the world’s largest collection of linked research data with over 140 million publications, it is a rich source of information on the impact of social science research.

Enabling whole-systems thinking

The AcSS report aimed to better understand the UK’s research and innovation (R&I) position, which is currently in a state of transition. Overall, the report argues that investment in R&I in the UK lags behind its competitors, despite the regard its higher education sector enjoys. The authors – which include Dr Juergen Wastl and Dr Kathryn Weber-Boer from Digital Science – seek to identify the role social sciences can play to ensure the UK’s position is optimized when it comes to R&I investment.

The first ingredient in the mix is for the social sciences to enable ‘whole-systems thinking’. What does this mean? The focus here is on innovation and entrepreneurship, and how social science can enable a better understanding of system capabilities such as economies, institutions, skills or culture. These contexts shape how enterprises in the UK can develop; being able to read them and make the right investment decisions on the back of it is a key part of a successful and dynamic economy.

The authors feel this point needs emphasizing as too often the social sciences are seen as a handbrake by contributing to ‘ELSIfication’, ie. stressing ethical, legal or societal implications (ELSI) in a given situation. However, that perception is questioned by the report which points to some key advances made in STEM research – such as in artificial intelligence (AI) and trustworthy autonomous systems (TAS) – where the level of expertise in these and related areas in social sciences in the UK far outpaces that of STEM. There is a huge untapped, advanced resource for STEM that would benefit R&I development if the two areas collaborated.

“…not only can social sciences improve STEM research and technological innovation by understanding the contexts they exist within, but they can also offer significant ‘value add’ when it comes to taking scientific breakthroughs into the society we live in.”

Case study

An example of the type of collaboration envisaged by the authors is given with the story of Professor Lucie Cluver in South Africa (University of Oxford and University of Cape Town), whose work on the impacts of AIDS showed that offering welfare payments to young orphaned girls meant they were less likely to seek older boyfriends who might, in turn, infect them. Understanding the complex social, environmental and psychological impacts of the disease has therefore provided an effective way to reduce infections above and beyond any STEM research into AIDS itself.

What we can see here is that not only can social sciences improve STEM research and technological innovation by understanding the contexts they exist within, but they can also offer significant ‘value add’ when it comes to taking scientific breakthroughs into the society we live in – above and beyond the checks and balances of ensuring ethical and legal parameters are maintained. The report is also keen to stress the relative superiority UK research enjoys in the social sciences, and how this can benefit STEM research as a whole when it comes to its impact on society.

Next time

The next ingredient is… Social sciences are critical for good policy development.

The post In the spotlight: Social sciences’ first key ingredient for research success appeared first on Digital Science.

We are not yet seeing large-scale fragmentation, but there are initial signs,” said World Trade Organization chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. This trend is, firstly, dangerous and, secondly, could ultimately prove to be “very costly”. “Let’s rethink globalization.” WTO chief warns of “dangerous” fragmentation of world trade.

Source: Der Spiegel

A brief investigative commentary

Reshoring, also known as ‘onshoring’, involves the returning of production and manufacturing of goods to the company’s original country. It can help strengthen an economy by creating manufacturing jobs and reducing unemployment.^[1]

Offshoring, on the other hand, can be framed as the relocation of value chain activities from a firm’s country of origin to foreign locations as outsourcing and investing, and has often been associated with strategies pursuing cost savings, and increased revenues.^[2] It is the opposite of reshoring where companies bring production and manufacturing back to the country in which it was first established.^[3]

In today’s uncertain world, reshoring is often depicted as the successor to offshoring.  However, recently, a new term has emerged – ‘friendshoring’ which refers to the rerouting of supply chains to countries perceived as politically and economically safe or low-risk, to avoid disruption to the flow of business.^[4]

As countries around the world, especially in Asia, continue to develop, labor costs are increasing and shipping costs are becoming prohibitive. For some businesses, the cost difference between operating onshore or offshore is negligible, and thus the gap is growing smaller. However, one of the main disadvantages of offshoring reverting to reshoring is the huge costs involved in moving manufacturing operations from one country to another.

Moreover, considering the instability of international trade – the geopolitical situation has changed dramatically over the past decade, with China showing signs of taking a leading role in trading internationally. Meanwhile, with the US taking a more cautious position and other changes that have happened in global trade relations (such as Brexit), having overseas operations represents a much higher risk today.^[5]

In the UK, following Brexit and Covid-19, the focus of reshoring is moving back to its own shores in attempts to strengthen its manufacturing resilience and to ensure its supply chains in a fragmented world.^[6]

…the number of research publications associated with offshoring vastly outweighs that of reshoring. However, what is of more interest is looking at trends over time.”

The empirical evidence on reshoring in the last decade highlights that reshoring processes are on the rise, with larger firms and medium to high-tech industries exhibiting the greatest reshoring propensity.^[7]

Using data in Dimensions, we take a brief look to see what trends are evident. Is reshoring (fragmentation) on the rise at the expense of offshoring (globalization)? Globalization is used here as a proxy for offshoring and fragmentation is used as a proxy for reshoring.

We created two simple keyword searches in Dimensions, the first, ‘reshoring’ and the second, ‘offshoring’. The data produced by Dimensions reveals that overall the number of research publications associated with offshoring vastly outweighs that of reshoring. However, what is of more interest is looking at trends over time.

Figure 1 demonstrates that in the last 10 years the trend in research associated with reshoring has been mostly upward, whereas for research associated with offshoring there is evidence that research associated with offshoring is marked by a sizable downturn from 2012 and has not recovered.

Figure 1 below outlines trends over time and where we see that offshoring, depicted by the darker blue line, peaks in 2012 and then declines rapidly, and does not recover in terms of numbers of published papers. For ‘reshoring’ we see the opposite trend – virtually no research published until 2012 followed by a continuous upward trend. These observations are in line with what we might see as a paradigm shift in manufacturing from global to fragmented.

Similarly, depicted below, we find equivalent trends for policy documents (albeit with smaller numbers – see Figure 2) – policy documents associated with ‘reshoring’ not starting to be documented until 2019 and continuing to rise, whereas for policy documents related to ‘offshoring’ the trend started much earlier, in 2014, showing a much more checkered increase until 2013 where we see it decreasing, and dwindling to zero in 2022.

…decisions to reshore are becoming increasingly popular in both Europe and the US, with businesses reversing prior decisions to offshore.”

Conclusion

We can make a number of conjectures from this simple analysis. First, that there is indeed a shift from globalization towards fragmentation from the perspective of what are known as ‘value chain activities’, particularly production in manufacturing.^[8]

Second, although, as the WTO chief states, we are not yet seeing large-scale fragmentation, the signs are there and decisions to reshore are becoming increasingly popular in both Europe and the US, with businesses reversing prior decisions to offshore.^[9]

A further point – following the simple analysis carried out in this piece – is that research publications outlined related to offshoring start to increase rapidly from 2003, whereas for the research relating to ‘reshoring’ the research does not start to increase until ten years later in 2013. This bolsters the empirical evidence that globalization (offshoring, or moving production to foreign locations) is perhaps giving way to fragmentation (reshoring, or localization of production closer to home).

References

^[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21681376.2023.2199054

^[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296323003636?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=81703bfd584f4887#b0810

^[3] https://www.xometry.com/resources/procurement/what-is-reshoring/

^[4] https://www.weforum.org/

^[5] https://www.xometry.com/resources/procurement/what-is-reshoring/

^[6] https://www.dudleyindustries.com/news/benefits-of-reshoring-manufacturing-to-the-uk

^[7] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/653626/EXPO_STU(2021)653626_EN.pdf

^[8] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296323003636?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=81703bfd584f4887#b0810

^[9] https://reshoring.eurofound.europa.eu/

The post In the spotlight: Reshoring vs offshoring in a geopolitically uncertain and fragmented world appeared first on Digital Science.

At this critical juncture, midway to 2030, the evidence makes clear that incremental and fragmented change is insufficient to achieve all 17 SDGs in the remaining seven years, or even by 2050.”

Antonio Guterres

UN Secretary General, 2023

A short commentary

2023 marks the halfway point between 2015 (the entry point of the Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), and 2030 (the end point of the SDGs).^[1] As it stands currently, the world is off track to achieving the SDGs^[2] and action is necessary to accelerate their implementation.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals^[3] remain an increasingly important platform, and are the best roadmap that we have currently for achieving global sustainable development. To effectively realise what is known as the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, there needs to be evidence of “a shared sense of common purpose”. However, progress on achieving the 2030 Agenda has been severely disrupted due to multiple world crises. Thus a joint effort utilising multi-stakeholder partnerships to help to achieve the SDGs is paramount at this halfway point.

Research looking at the fragmentation of SDGs reveals some interesting insights from a number of perspectives. For example, a recent study has found that at this halfway point, silos are strengthening around the 17 SDGs and their three dimensions (social, economic and environmental) producing a fragmented state.^[4] The study, carried out by researchers at the University of Utrecht, looked at the network of international organisations assessing how they had either come together or diverged since the SDGs came into effect in 2016. The research found that overall fragmentation had not decreased in the network since SDG implementation, but did find that international organisations with a focus on the three dimensions of SDG policies displayed different tendencies. For example, social international organisations are least likely to cooperate with others outside the social dimension and are hence most siloed. Environmental international organisations, conversely, are most inclined to cooperate with others outside their dimension, however, the study found that this has diminished over time.^[5]

In a report by the United Nations Development Programme, according to the IMF, global financial fragmentation caused by geopolitical tensions has increased economic fragility.  This has resulted in rising socio-economic inequality contributing to reduced global trade and social tensions in both developed and developing countries, threatening progress on the SDGs.^[6]

The governance in global sustainability is important for bringing together the 191 SDG member states and international organisations that are tasked with working towards realising the Goals. Currently though, this governance is notable in its distinct clusters of international organisations working in a siloed fashion thereby leading to a fragmented system. SDG17 – Partnership for the Goals – emphasises the global partnership that is necessary for achieving all of the SDGs and strengthening inter-organisational coordination and cooperation and is recognised as an important challenge in global sustainability governance. However, geopolitical tensions have made it more difficult to achieve this and cooperation and coordination are necessary now more than ever to speed up the implementation of the SDGs.

Advancing and achieving the SDGs in a world with increased complexity and fragmentation is not an easy task. A complex network of interconnections exist across the SDGs and show how actions directed towards one SDG can influence others. For example, food production (SDGs 1 and 2) is increasingly threatened by air pollution (SDG13), which affects soil quality (SDG15) and crop yields (SDG2). The 2023 Global Sustainability report highlights that an interconnected and systemic approach will be key and shows new evidence that understanding the interconnections between individual goals (as we see above) will be essential. The intertwinings and interdependencies that exist should mean that they cannot fragment. However, this is not the case according to research highlighted above, nor is it for research looking at fragmentation as an enduring feature of the SDGs and the global landscape.

The viewpoint we have taken for this short piece emphasises geopolitical tensions and international organisations/governance as two themes by which to briefly take a look at the narrative in this area. One of the central premises is that the SDGs by their very nature are interwoven and connected and so there should be no room for fragmentation, but what we see is that individually and collectively (by their three dimensions) SDG fragmentation has emerged in a number of different ways.

References

^[1] https://www.un.org/en/conferences/SDGSummit2023

^[2] https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2023/09

^[3] https://sdgs.un.org/goals

^[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378022001054#b0610

^[5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378022001054

^[6] https://www.undp.org/publications/fragmentation-integration-embedding-social-issues-sustainable-finance-0#:~:text=The%20paper%20From%20Fragmentation%20to,of%20a%20market%2Dbased%20economy

The post In the spotlight: Have the SDGs failed to reduce fragmentation in global sustainability? appeared first on Digital Science.