Contemporary Social Science, publishing and looking forwards

Introduction

Welcome to this fifth issue of Volume 18, our first ‘non-themed’ general issue featuring a mix of gold open access articles (OA) and ‘traditional’ non-OA articles. This issue is an attempt to open up the journal to a wider range of submissions. Previously this fifth issue only published OA articles (‘CSS Open’),¹ meaning that there was no home at the journal for subscription articles (non-OA articles) that were not targeted at one of our four special issues each year. This latest fifth issue hopes to rectify that, and going forward we invite submissions from the community on any social science topic of interest to the journal regardless of whether they are to be published OA.

All articles for the fifth issue are published online first on the journal's website (on average within 13 days of being accepted) and then collated into the fifth issue. Contributions to this general fifth issue are welcome in any appropriate form, including critical essays, reviews of significant topics, qualitative or quantitative empirical studies, including case studies and large-scale statistical analyses. Well documented examples of social science in action, composite reviews of sets of books and other publications are also welcome. Submissions will normally be in the 5000–7000 word range.

CSS Open of course has been an exciting development for the journal, both in terms of enabling more OA publishing and offering a ‘non-themed’ issue in addition to our usual special issues, made up of original research from disciplines across the social sciences. These OA online-only issues, published from 2020 onwards, recognised the shift taking place in publishing towards work which is open, accessible, impactful and inclusive. Many of these articles have been widely read and cited, see for example Breakwell (2020) on ‘Mistrust, uncertainty and health risks’, Van Der Zwet et al. (2020) on ‘Brexit, Europe and Othering’, Connolly et al. (2021) on ‘Governing “levelling-up” in the UK: challenges and prospects’ and Grant and Kara (2021) on ‘Considering the Autistic advantage in qualitative research: the strengths of Autistic researchers’ amongst many others.

Last year's CSS Open articles were particularly impactful, with high altmetric scores reflecting social media and other discussions of the articles. These include what is rapidly becoming seen as a seminal piece by Michie et al. (2022) on ‘Lessons from the UK's handling of Covid-19 for the future of scientific advice to government: a contribution to the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry’ which has had particular salience given the ongoing inquiry. This article highlights that despite strong expertise and a sophisticated scientific advisory system, the UK's response to the Covid-19 pandemic was weak in terms of preventing death and illness, and damage to the economy. The authors argue that an important reason for this failure has been that the policies of the UK government have at critical moments failed to take adequate account of scientific evidence, while at the same time, attempts have been made to blame scientists for resulting policy failures.

Another example is Bailey et al. (2022) which highlighted how Brexit led to increased socio-economic risk for manufacturers, requiring careful management by the latter. The fact that Brexit negotiations lasted for several years increased uncertainty for business and was compounded by a poor flow of information from government for businesses. Brexit impacted particularly on supply chains and led to increased transaction costs and challenges in supplying components and finished goods, with scenario planning being one risk mitigation strategy used by firms.

Beyond CSS Open, this year the journal has also published many more OA articles in special issues, thanks to the read-and-publish deal reached between our publisher Taylor & Francis and Jisc in the UK, as well as similar deals with organisations around the world.

This issue

This year's fifth issue is set to continue this high level of impact in a number of ways, notably by producing high-quality and insightful academic work that is widely read, by bringing out valuable policy implications of social science work, and by furthering our understanding of how social science can contribute to understanding the grand challenges that society faces.

The issue starts with a critical, agenda-setting piece by Murshed and Regnault (2023, in this issue) on ‘Inequality: the scourge of the twenty-first century’. The authors note that rising inequality is a ubiquitous problem, encompassing every geographical region and nation in the world. The article highlights multifarious causes, including accelerating globalisation, plutocratic politics, excessive emphasis on ‘meritocratic’ pay, declining public expenditure, and social protection combined with the high rates of return on ‘capital’ compared to the overall economy's growth rate. The article argues that excessive inequality prevents social mobility and contains the seeds of social conflict and even civil wars. Most crucially, excessive and rising inequality makes democratic politics and governance unsustainable. High inequality may be a causal factor behind the decline of democracy and the rise of autocracy and populism that we are witnessing globally. The authors stress that in the ultimate analysis, the reduction of inequality necessitates wealth taxes.

Linked with inequality, precariousness has become a major issue for workers. Rudman et al. (2023, in this issue) in ‘Third places in precarious workers’ lives: a scoping review of associated social experiences and outcomes’ investigate what is known about the types and characteristics of physical and virtual ‘third places’ outside of home and work that help maintain social connectedness and ameliorate social isolation in the lives of precarious workers. The article finds that such places could be associated with social risks, obligations and exclusions, and were also mobilised to address diverse social needs, including: a sense of belonging to a collective of ‘similar’ others; temporary respite from the conditions of precarity; assertion of presence and visibility; and exchange of diverse resources and forms of care. The article helps to inform critical reflections on the kinds of spaces that can serve as ‘third places’ within societies marked by growing precarity.

This is followed by Pautz (2023, in this issue) who in ‘Policy making and artificial intelligence in Scotland’ offers a highly topical case study on whether and how artificial intelligence (AI) is used by the Scottish Government, key concerns relating to its usage, and obstacles to, and drivers of, AI usage. The article finds that the Scottish Government has, so far, made little use of AI. Currently, AI is used in limited ways in process automation and for gaining ‘cognitive insights’ with the human in control. There are no ‘strategic’ AI applications where advanced reasoning and ‘decision-making by algorithm’ play a role. Data-driven e-policy making is not currently on the cards. The reasons for this are the Scottish Government's wariness of AI, a lack of ‘digital maturity’ (concerning Big Data and digital infrastructure, but also expertise) in the public sector, and ethical concerns around the use of AI. The article argues that governments need to conduct a debate about the extent of AI usage to avoid ‘AI creep’ in their institutions and to assure that AI does not have negative consequences for democracy.

The next article in this general issue is also highly topical. In ‘EU enlargement in wartime Europe: three dimensions and scenarios’, Karjalainen (2023, in this issue) analyses the current evolution of the European Union (EU) enlargement policy as it emerges from the interplay of geopolitics, state-building challenges and the EU's internal dynamics. Drawing on original interviews with officials, the article presents three scenarios for the coming decade. It concludes that to achieve its foreign policy objectives in the neighbourhood, the EU cannot continue ‘business as usual’ with enlargement. On the contrary, policy needs to be replaced by a more effective model that encourages candidate countries to undertake genuine efforts towards democratic development. At the same time, reforms and compromises are required on the side of the EU. Furthermore, the EU needs to better address the security needs of the applicant countries already during the accession process.

The issue of community is the focus of the next article, by Gamo and Park (2022, in this issue). In ‘Community sentiment influences community participation: evidence from Ethiopia’ the authors examine social connectedness, community attachment and community satisfaction as factors influencing community participation among rural residents in Ethiopia. They find that community participation is influenced not only by respondents’ demographic and socio-economic characteristics but also by their community sentiment. They find that respondents who were more socially connected, who have higher levels of attachment to their community and more satisfied with their community are more likely to participate. The authors outline possible community networking mechanisms and social events to augment community participation.

The final article in this issue comes from Molina and Connolly (2023, in this issue) entitled ‘a modern research profession: government social research, evidence-based policymaking and blind spots in contemporary governance research’. The authors note that recent debates on evidence-based policymaking have demonstrated limited engagement with the Government's Social Research (GSR) profession and its role in facilitating the translation of evidence into policy. Though there was a concerted scholarly focus on social research functions within government during the 1980s and 1990s, the recent limited focus on these professions has led to a ‘blind spot’ in research. The authors argue that there is a need for a critical research agenda on the composition of research professions within governments which could reflect on questions about the interface between research evidence and other government functions. The article offers four starting points for such a research agenda, focusing on the effects of reform programmes for (1) researchers’ professional identities and values, (2) organisational change processes, (3) accountability challenges and (4) intra-professional relationships with evidence producers.

We hope that you enjoy this fifth issue of the journal. This is certainly a high-quality and wide-ranging issue.

Contemporary Social Science going forwards

More broadly, Volume 18 of the journal saw a rich mix of special issues ranging from ‘Sport, Covid and society’ (see Michelini et al., 2023) to ‘People, places and policy beyond Brexit’ (see Bailey et al., 2023) and the most recent double issue on ‘Levelling up or down’ (see Fai & Tomlinson, 2023).

This is set to continue next year, with issues planned for example on ‘Enabling a Just Transition’ and ‘The Future of Mobilities’. Submissions for these themed issues are welcome, and full details can be found on the journal's website. All contributions will be double-anonymous peer-reviewed to determine both academic excellence and the accessibility of the material to non-specialists in social sciences other than the authors’ field(s) of work. All submissions should include some indication of the implications for policy and/or practice. Full details of how to submit articles and suggestions for themed issues are available on the journal website. As noted, authors can of course still choose to publish on an OA basis in any of the themed issues.

The aims and scope of Contemporary Social Science remain as relevant as ever. This interdisciplinary, cross-national journal provides a forum for disseminating and enhancing theoretical, empirical and/or pragmatic research across the social sciences and related disciplines. Reflecting the objectives of the Academy of Social Sciences, the journal emphasises the publication of work that engages with issues of major public interest and concern across the world, and highlights the implications of that work for policy and professional practice.

The ongoing success of the journal was reflected this year in its obtaining an Impact Factor for the first time, and in appearing in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science). Such successes for the journal rely on a collective effort involving the Academy of Social Sciences, Taylor & Francis, Yellowback, the editorial team, reviewers, authors and readers. A very big thank you to all of you.

Notes

1 See, for example: Barnes and Connolly (2020); Bailey (2022).