In Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences, Luker states that the technology needed to complete certain research is limited to the “kinds of data that the government […] is willing to fund” (Luker, 36). Therefore, if some research relies solely on government funding, and researchers cannot receive that funding, the government then controls what kind of research can advance over others. Although there is always the option of receiving private funding for research, I still find it troubling that the government has enough control to stop research from progressing, especially if it is research that can potentially help people. An example of this that I recently read about was the battle to advance stem cell research to cure degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s Disease. It seems that the relationship between the government and researchers gets murkier in the face of ethical issues, and I am wonder what steps could be taken to hash these problems out in a better way.
Luker, K. (2008). Salsa Dancing Into the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
I have to agree with you Amy. The connection between research and the government never really occurred to me until I read Luker. It makes sense I suppose that only large organization like the government would be able to gather the stats needed to do a lot of the research in the social sciences. I just never thought about how the government's involvement might influence the types of questions asked and therefore limit the research that can be conducted (if the researcher wants to stick with canonical social science research of course).
ReplyDeleteIt also makes me wonder how the scrapping of the long form census in Canada will effect research in Canada and how changes in government will affect the type of information collected by the census.
I think about these topics quite a lot as I delve more into the area of studying addictions. It is interesting when you consider how research and funding processes differ from country to country. What Luker is saying about limits of research based on governmental power and biases at any given moment is accurate, but I think the limits are also impacted on the long term fallout from previous administrations. The United States and Canada differ in terms of how research is put forward and conducted. The headings under which researchers submit proposals are broad (ie. there is no “addiction” grant heading for submission in Canada - basically a grant proposal focused on gambling addiction competes with one about cancer - which is a little odd don’t you think?) - generally health research grant proposals are submitted to CIHR whereas in the United States, grant proposals are submitted and judged by the NIDA - a more specifically addiction focused organization. These differences in structure likely affect the outcome of grant applications. But also, they are influenced by the cultural norms, morality structure and legal controls in place.
ReplyDeleteI had never really considered it before one recent research paper that I worked on, but there is no such thing as nationally funded harm reduction programs in the United States, despite the plethora of solid, evidence based research showing the benefits. It is almost as though ingrained opinions based on morality trump logic. This we can for sure see in the gun control situation in which typical families (even Gabby Giffords’) own Glocks and are adamant about protecting that god given right. This is where we seem to differ from the United States. In Canada, even as the Harper government dismisses WHO endorsed medical evidence on harm reduction and addiction, a combination of Canadian advocacy groups, an educated, less religion and morality enmeshed public as well as a good legal system have managed to fend off and lead to the dismissal of the Conservative government’s legal challenges.
And Mary, I am so glad you don’t know anyone that owns a gun. Very surprised, but glad. ;-)
And on an entirely different note, I find it amusing that the new Facebook “graph” search is referred to as “meaningful”.
Jude- I also find that amusing!
ReplyDelete