Search

Social psychological scholarship has emphasized the importance of effective leadership during the COVID‐19 pandemic. However, the wider material contexts of these dynamics have often remained understudied. Through a critical discursive lens, this paper investigates differences in the social constructions used by leaders of richer and poorer nations during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We identify a sharp economic bifurcation in global discourses of pandemic leadership. Pandemic leadership in wealthier nations exercises power in abundance by mobilizing institutions and inspiring communities through discursive frames of coordination and collaboration. Conversely, pandemic leadership in poorer settings negotiates agency amid scarcity by tactically balancing resources, freedoms and dignity within discursive frames of restriction and recuperation. Implications of these findings are unpacked for understanding leadership especially during an international crisis, highlighting the need for critical sensitivities to wider societal structures for a genuinely global social psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contributing to the literature on knowledge infrastructure maintenance, this article describes a historical longitudinal analysis of revenue streams employed by four social science data organizations: the Roper Center for Public Opinion, the Inter‐university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), the UK Data Archive (UKDA), and the LIS Cross‐National Data Center in Luxembourg (LIS). Drawing on archival documentation and interviews, we describe founders' assumptions about revenue, changes to revenue streams over the long term, practices for developing and maintaining revenue streams, the importance of financial support from host organizations, and how the context of each data organization shaped revenue possibilities. We extend conversations about knowledge infrastructure revenue streams by showing the types of change that have occurred over time and how it occurs. We provide examples of the types of flexibility needed for data organizations to remain sustainable over 40–60 years of revenue changes. We distinguish between Type A flexibilities, or development of new products and services, and Type B flexibilities, or continuous smaller adjustments to existing revenue streams. We argue that Type B flexibilities are as important as Type A, although they are easily overlooked. Our results are relevant to knowledge infrastructure managers and stakeholders facing similar revenue challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore the priority given by researchers working in the field of behavioural, epidemiological and health services research to key aspects of research in oral health and inequalities. Method: Survey of registrants at the Behavioural Epidemiological and Health Services Research group of the International Association for Dental Research (BEHSR/IADR) Summit October 2020. Findings: The highest ranking for priority was given to 'Testing interventions to reducing oral health inequalities', and within this area to the exploration of public health approaches to reducing such disparities. Lower ranking priorities included 'Describing inequalities within countries' and 'Describing the mechanisms by which inequality produces poor health'. Conclusions: Registrants at the (BEHSR/IADR) Summit October 2020 gave priority to testing interventions which will seek to reduce oral health inequalities, particularly through public health approaches such as creating policy change and community level interventions. Epidemiological research describing inequalities within countries was given a lower priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study analyses contributions to Library and Information Science (LIS) by researchers representing various disciplines. How are such contributions associated with the choice of research topics and methodology? The study employs a quantitative content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 2015. Each article is seen as a contribution to LIS by the authors' disciplines, which are inferred from their affiliations. The unit of analysis is the article‐discipline pair. Of the contribution instances, the share of LIS is one third. Computer Science contributes one fifth and Business and Economics one sixth. The latter disciplines dominate the contributions in information retrieval, information seeking, and scientific communication indicating strong influences in LIS. Correspondence analysis reveals three clusters of research, one focusing on traditional LIS with contributions from LIS and Humanities and survey‐type research; another on information retrieval with contributions from Computer Science and experimental research; and the third on scientific communication with contributions from Natural Sciences and Medicine and citation analytic research. The strong differentiation of scholarly contributions in LIS hints to the fragmentation of LIS as a discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]