Beauty: The case for social science censorship in the world today — we know a lot! What is censorship? I can provide an unlimited number. Large-scale phenomena that cannot be discussed - well, just can't be discussed! ! ! The consequences of not discussing are beautiful. If you discuss, you will immediately be ready to disappear and enter hell! ! !

Thank you!

While there may be censorship in certain countries, I believe that between the internet and other distributed information channels, there's no world-wide censorship on any particular topic.

Having said that, while it may not be overt censorship, the reality is that some topics get funded and some may not be, some topics get published and some may not be, some topics are suitable for tenure-track positions and others may not be. This can function as a form of censorship, especially for those with new ideas that may not be readily accepted by the field.

All generally recognized science is generated, supported, and promoted by authorities. Any scientific opinions not supported by the authorities will be discouraged by them. This may be seen as censorship.

Partial yes and Yes.All depends on the aspect or perspectives one tilted to; for illustration,if one look at censor as forbidden,ban or selectively removed,then censor is very much applied.We censored M.Sc dissertations,PhD Thesis, projects of undergrads,do book reviews,journal editing,we delete, substitute by elimination, expurgate etc all in Social Science except article's on social media that everything goes,however; hate speech is frown at which are not even meant for academics expenditure

On a micro level, I would say it is not impossible for journal editors and reviewers to censor manuscripts they don't like or outright reject them, effectively gatekeeping the means of academic publication.

When we have the period of 'normal science' then anybody may be a censor, I mean any scholar supporting the reigning paradigm... but there may be also something over it... general climate (sometimes a fashion) to elaborate on one kind of topics and omit others

I do not believe that there is censorship in the social sciences as a subject and science in itself. What there may be in certain countries is the non-dissemination of research results that do not conform to the political objectives of the government.

Dear Agnieszka,

Of course there is censorship of every kind and everywhere today in the social sciences: from self-censorship due to multiple kinds of fears (including smearing of colleagues in ways that are defamatory and without any chance to reply which is a growing problem even in scholarly journals) and taboos, to financial and political influence that defines "current debates", to redefinitions of and limitations of fields that change what questions and what conclusions and what methodologies are allowed, to disciplinary barriers, to hierarchies of corporate journals that determine what is reviewed and by whom and what space is allotted and who can be cited, and every other kind of conflicts of interest and hierarchy, even in book reviews that now have to be promotional for colleagues rather than honest and constructive criticism and debates. And most journals today have eliminated letters to the editor and debates, while discussion platforms are also pre-screened Ralph Nader used to say that in legal scholarship, you can't present a new idea because you "can't footnote it" and today you can't get a minority idea through a "majority" peer review in most fields, where the standard is now subjective agreement. To be heard with credibility, you need to have your own journal and press but that is also subject to controls.

I suggest that you focus on solutions:

(1) de-politicizing peer review, is one, so that following a methodology protects even unpopular conclusions. Here is one of two articles that I have offered to set the model, in response to politicization in one of my fields. (This one was censored and then finally published and the other one on book review standards can still not be published.)

“Returning Discipline to the Discipline: A Model Procedure for Reviews in Anthropology, Other Social Sciences, and Related Disciplines,” Catalyst: A Social Justice Forum, 2018, Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 10, pages 301 - 326. Available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/catalyst/vol8/iss1/10

(2) You can also try to set up a new e-journal that allows for alternative work and is open to work that has been censored. If anyone reading this would like to do that and has a platform, contact me so that I can join you.

If you just want to read about the general problem today, take a look at this piece and the special issue of Catalyst that I edited to open debate on this issue.

“Foreword: The Death of Social Sciences in an Era of Multi-Cultural Corporatism (Neo-Liberalism): With Efforts at Resuscitation”, Catalyst: A Social Justice Forum, 2018, Vol. 8, Issue 1, Article 2, pages 1 – 52.

Available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/catalyst/vol8/iss1/2

Here's a short article on the general problem globally.

“Are Social Scientists Next to be Imprisoned and Tortured?: A Call to Unite and Oppose the Criminalization of Social Science, Contexts (American Sociological Association), 2019. Available at: https://contexts.org/blog/are-social-scientists-next-to-be-imprisoned-and-tortured-a-call-to-unite-and-oppose-the-criminalization-of-social-science/

You can also look at a piece I put up on ResearchGate in response to political pressures in Anthropology that are a result of the current war in Ukraine. The censorship today is exactly the opposite line from 30 years ago when the line then was that Russia was a "democracy". The fact that censorship can move so quickly and easily from one position to its opposite shows how politicized social science has become.

Best,

David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.)

I am very grateful for your reply and comprehensive answer with references, thank you!

An interesting question. I don't think that there is censorship in the strict sense of the word but there are paradigms and taboos which cause limits to what can be researched or funded or published. I have a concrete example: In the 1960s and (I think) early 1970s, the Eurobarometer founders asked people how they feel about the other members of then European Community, like How do Germans feel about French people, how do they perceive them, do they like them etc. These questions were stopped after a few years and I think that until today it's difficult to ask such questions in a study. It's not impossible, but it's sensitive and would probably not get funding and maybe not much attention. It's similar with questions about political culture, I think. Almond and Verba defined some countries as patriarchal which today would be problematic.

There is another form of censorship - restricting research findings to extremely expensive academic journals. Findings may be of significant importance but unavailable to an ordinary counsellor/psychotherapist who runs an ordinary practice and simply can't afford them.

Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

"Science is among humanity’s greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions..."

Article Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientis...

The Threat of Self-Censorship in Science

Behavioral scientist Cory Clark is one of a number of scientists who argue in a recent paper that scholars are often afraid of offending the political or moral views of their peers, particularly if they’re seen as the majority opinion. That can both hamper research and lead to a loss of trust in science...

Disagreements appear between coauthors. And some people would say, there probably are some cases where censorship of science is actually the best for society. And some of us thought, there are probably no cases where censorship is actually best for society...

https://undark.org/2023/12/15/interview-self-censorship/

A very important question, yes there is censorship that varies in intensity between societies through censorship of publishing topics, emphasis on political topics, especially those that do not serve certain interests, as well as persuading the reseacher to avoid some topics under the pretext that they are social taboos, and narrowing the scope of research and directing it, widening the gap between the natural and social sciences and giving priority to the former over the latter.