Now Is the Time: How to Increase the Value of Social Science

INTRODUCTION

Social scientists conduct research, teach, and provide various kinds of services to the public and private sectors. Many are excited about their work. They want others to know about it and use it. They want these things for many reasons, including informing policy, making money, and job satisfaction. Readers of this paper are likely familiar with social scientists' motivations. What do we know about the motivations of the people who pay for the research, teaching, and public service that social scientists do? What motivates social science's actual and potential supporters?

Many people support social science because it has the potential to improve quality of life. Today, social scientific insights help many people better align their actions with their goals. It increases the effectiveness with which critical public services are delivered (Prewitt and Hauser 2013). It informs strategies in the domains of health, environment, business, elections, diplomacy, defense, and more.

Around the world, individuals and organizations use social science to improve quality of life for diverse and important constituencies. Consider, for example, behavioral economics. Its influence has improved health and life outcomes for thousands of desperately ill people (National Academy of Sciences 2016) and the number of people who participate in retirement savings plans. Other disciplines have similar stories. These science-fueled behavior changes affect how millions of people live their lives. Given its growing range and influence, one would think that social science's future as a generator of significant social value is very bright. But dark clouds loom.

Evolving communication technologies are altering how people perceive and value information. For example, more people than ever use the Internet to distribute information of all kinds. This avalanche of content has changed the kinds of information for which individuals, businesses, and governments are willing to pay. Technology has transformed the marketplace for information.

If social science wants to remain relevant in the face of these transformations, it must respond to increased competition and changing expectations in the information marketplace. It must do so by providing increasingly valuable services to potential users. The good news is that social science has significant untapped potential to improve human life. The challenging news is that achieving this potential will require changes to how many social scientists think about and do their work.

If individual social scientists want more people to know about their work, and if they want more opportunities to inform policy, make money, or have satisfying jobs in an increasingly competitive marketplace, the social scientific community must

• • increase competence at communicating scientific information;

• • increase commitments to transparency practices that allow consumers of social science to better understand what our claims do—and do not—mean; and

• • commit to greater stakeholder engagement.

Failure to respond in these ways will limit social science's ability to benefit others, limit future opportunities for individual scholars, and limit the number of people who support social scientific research. This last point is a pressing concern. Prominent politicians have pointed to marketplace changes when questioning whether the National Science Foundation should support social scientific research at previous levels (Cantor and Smith 2013). Members of the public ask similar questions. Social science can answer these questions more effectively by providing greater value to more constituencies. Increasing our commitment to communication, transparency, and engagement is a means to this end. The time to act is now.

The article continues as follows. I first describe changes in the marketplace for scientific information. I then explain how these changes affect the types of research that sponsors want to fund. Next, I outline a three-step strategy for increasing social science's value and support. A final section concludes the argument.

CHANGES IN THE MARKETPLACE

A "marketplace" is a venue where people exchange goods and services. Some marketplace participants sell goods and services. Others acquire and consume them.

Scientific claims are exchanged in a marketplace. In this marketplace, scientists sell information and meaning. Scientists sell information in the form of data, evidence, and related materials. Scientists sell meaning when they categorize, analyze, and interpret these materials. Their products come to market...