[Commlist] CfP - 'validity' in the social sciences

Sentio - an interdisciplinary social science journal

About the journal

Sentio is a new online journal  (ISSN 2632-2455) founded and edited by 
PhD students from the ESRC-funded South-east Network for the Social 
Sciences (SeNSS) Doctoral Training Partnership. The journal’s 
name, Sentio, translates to “I sense”, and reflects our 
editorial interest in exploring the multiple and varied means by which 
knowledge may be produced in and through the social sciences.

We invite submissions from doctoral researchers and scholars from all 
institutions as our current and future collaborators and interlocutors. 
Articles will be selected on a basis of merit and contribution to the 
journal’s theme, not the author’s institutional affiliation.

We aim to publish contributions from PhD candidates, postgraduate 
students, early-career researchers (ECRs) and scholars that speak to 
current debates within and across all social sciences disciplines. 
Submissions to the journal may comprise theoretical, methodological, and 
empirical scholarship pertaining to the journal’s theme, or reports, 
commentaries, and personal reflections on issues relevant to social 
science scholarship. We particularly welcome submissions from an 
interdisciplinary perspective.

  Sentio is comprised of three sections:

▪       Features (1,000-1,500 words) containing interviews, book 
reviews, and reportage of current events.

▪       Reflections (250-1,500 words) featuring informal deliberation on 
fieldwork, methodology, grant/job application writing, and other aspects 
of PhD/ECR life.

▪       Articles (1,000-3,000 words) featuring short academic articles, 
usually brief versions of PhD chapters, conference submissions, or 
journal articles, giving contributors a platform to publish early-stage 
ideas, theories, or findings from their research as they emerge.

Our theme for the inaugural issue: Validity

The theme of our first issue is ‘validity’. We invite contributors to 
reflect on the various uses, meanings, and mobilizations of the concept 
within and across specific social science disciplines.

Validity is often interpreted differently across qualitative and 
quantitative research methodologies. Research designs and 
conclusions considered valid in one approach might be seen as invalid in 
another. Contributions on this theme might involve reflection on 
debates between different theoretical and epistemological paradigms, or 
they could discuss the abilities of certain methodologies to 
uncover ‘truths’. Scholars working in a positivist paradigm might have 
different opinions on this to those working in a 
post-positivist paradigm, for example.

Validity might also refer to the uses of research output, for instance 
through claims that research is only ‘valid’ if its results are taken up 
by policy makers and advocacy groups. Further, validity might be a 
quality relevant for research ethics: how can we conduct scientific 
study that produces insights about the social world without doing harm 
to those we are researching?

Whilst debates about validity are a perennial issue within the social 
sciences, the concept has been thrust into the spotlight once again in 
recent months. The notion of validity has been marshalled in debates 
about the status of gender, race, and queer studies (as well as other 
forms of theorizing associated with emancipatory movements) as forms of 
‘scientific enquiry’, with some commentators arguing that they fall 
short of scientific standards on methodological and epistemological 
grounds. Further, while efforts to strictly circumscribe ‘proper’ social 
sciences are as old as each of its constituent disciplines, the current 
debate takes place in a setting of increased urgency. The policing of 
disciplinary boundaries occurs simultaneously with the fortification of 
territorial boundaries, as well as an attendant climate of increasing 
hostility against minoritised others. The academy of which we are all a 
part is a site of real struggle when it comes to this debate: the 
‘hostile environment’ policy enforces increased surveillance of non-EU 
staff and students, while race, gender, and sexualities scholarship is 
under threat from cuts in funding and disruption by right-wing agitators.

Submissions

Against the background of recent political and intellectual debates on 
the merits and obligations of scientific inquiry, we invite authors to 
reflect on ‘validity’ in the social sciences.

Abstracts of maximum 250 words, along with full author details (name, 
position, contact details, and institutional affiliation(s)) should be 
submitted by 31 January 2019. Please submit contributions 
to (SentioJournal /at/ gmail.com).

All submissions will be blind reviewed by the editorial team, and 
contributors will be notified of the outcome by 22 February 2019.

Whilst we welcome broad interpretations of the theme for this issue, 
recognizing that validity might be approached in a number of ways, we 
offer some suggestions of potential areas of interest across the 
journal’s three sections:

Features

▪       Interviews with scholars whose work engages with, troubles, or 
critically pushes the boundaries of how social science scholarship comes 
to be seen as ‘valid’

▪       Review articles of recent publications engaging the concept of 
social science validity

▪       Reportage of recent debates, observed online or in person, of 
questions surrounding social science validity

Reflections

▪       Moments of a researcher’s experience often left out of the final 
text. Instances of personal realisation, emotional revelation, 
or descriptions of felt experiences

▪       Stories that highlight the ways, means, and processes by which 
you as a researcher or your research itself have been validated or 
invalidated. What kinds of validity do you seek to attain? What kinds of 
validity do you notice yourself imposing on or reproducing for others?

▪       Experiences of applying different methodological approaches in 
order to validate research, e.g. questionnaires and scales, interviews, 
observation, participatory methods, etc.

Articles

▪       Philosophical or theoretical discussions about the concept of 
‘validity’ and its centrality in social science research

▪       Methodological approaches to obtaining ‘validity’ through 
quantitative and/or qualitative means

▪       The place of ‘validity’ in data collection, analysis and 
dissemination of research findings

▪       Definitional debates around ‘validity’

Communication

For questions, please contact (SentioJournal /at/ gmail.com)

Twitter: https://twitter.com/SentioJournal

Website: https://sentiojournal.wordpress.com/


---------------
The COMMLIST
---------------
This mailing list is a free service offered by Nico Carpentier. Please use it responsibly and wisely.
--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit http://commlist.org/
--
Before sending a posting request, please always read the guidelines at http://commlist.org/
--
To contact the mailing list manager:
Email: (nico.carpentier /at/ vub.ac.be)
URL: http://nicocarpentier.net
---------------