The book considers issues relating to accountability in social research by juxtaposing seven ways of approaching the issues and by moving toward the development of a particular approach to the earning of trust on the part of researchers. A conception of the practice and assessment of discursive accountability is presented as an option for consideration. The book grapples with the issue of accountability in social research by considering the extent to which and ways in which it is addressed in a number of different positions regarding the practice of social science. The focus of the book is on reviewing discourses around the practice of professional' inquiry, with a view to highlighting differing arguments around the question of what it might mean to assess researchers' accountabilities. The book is structured around considering in detail various views on accountability in relation to one another. A comprehensive comparison of arguments is presented in the first two chapters of the book. The debate that is set up in the first two chapters forms the background to the elaboration and development (in Chapter 3) of constructivist argumentation in relation to the question of how accounts as set forth by researchers should be treated (by colleagues, participants, and other audiences). The continuing debate about the status to be afforded to constructions developed by researchers is tackled in this chapter. Constructivist thinking is then extended toward what is named in the book a trusting constructivist' position. This position focuses on ways in which trust earning and trust awarding in the context of social inquiry can proceed without researchers having to justify themselves as striving togain access to knowledge as representation of reality. Through the development of the trusting constructivist position, the book explores ways of creating trust through processes of social discourse. An assessment of actual research projects in view of the debates set up in earlier chapters then takes place. Through these assessments readers can relate the details of the arguments developed in earlier chapters to their implications for judging the practice of (accountable) social inquiry.

This book develops a debate around responsible social inquiry into new racism. A variety of ways of researching new forms of racism (for example, aversive, modern, cultural, purportedly color-blind, and new racism) are addressed. Experiments that have been undertaken to inquire into group identity and people's implicit bias in relation to those perceived as "other" are critically explored and their potential consequences reconsidered. The book also critically explores survey research, which, it is argued, can serve to reinforce the notion of the existence of ethnoracial groups with defined boundaries that inhere in social life. The book considers interviewing (including focus group interviewing) and case study research (including participant observation/ethnography) in terms of possibilities for moving beyond new forms of racism. Action research (defined by the understanding of an inextricable link between knowing and acting) is examined in-depth in terms of the hopes to "make a difference" at the moment of inquiry. Types of retroductive logic that are used to examine underlying structures that arguably unduly constrain people's life chances and render human relationships inhumane are also explored. The book draws together the different arguments; and it proposes ways in which the design of research into new racism can better approached as well as ways in which dialogue around processes of inquiry and the products thereof can be better fostered. Suggestions for nurturing humane social relationships that provide for transcultural meaning-making are threaded through the text.

This book addresses the social and environmental justice challenge to live sustainably and well. It considers the consequences of our social, economic and environmental policy and governance decisions for this generation and the next. The book tests out ways to improve representation, accountability and re-generation. It addresses the need to take into account the ethical implications of policy and governance decisions in the short, medium and long term based on testing out the implications for self, other and the environment. This book recognizes the negative impact that humans have had on the Earth's ecosystem and recommends a less anthropocentric way of looking at policies and governance. The chapters discuss the geologic impact that people have had on the globe, both positive and negative, and brings awareness to the anthropocentric interventions that have influenced life on Earth during the Holocene era. Based on these observations, the authors discuss original ideas and critical reviews on ways to govern those who interpret the world in terms of human values and experience, and to conduct an egalitarian lifestyle. These ideas address the growing rise in the size of the ecological footprints of some at the expense of the majority, the growth in unsustainable food choices and of displaced people, and the need for a new sense of relationship with nature and other animals, among other issues. The chapters included in Balancing Individualism and Collectivism: Social and Environmental Justice encourage readers to challenge the sustainability agenda of the anthropocentric life. Proposed solutions to these unsustainable actions include structuralized interventions and volunteerism through encouragement and education, with a focus on protecting current and future generations of life through new governmental etiquette and human cognizance.

This book develops a debate around responsible social inquiry into new racism. A variety of ways of researching new forms of racism (for example, aversive, modern, cultural, purportedly color-blind, and new racism) are addressed. Experiments that have been undertaken to inquire into group identity and people's implicit bias in relation to those perceived as "other" are critically explored and their potential consequences reconsidered. The book also critically explores survey research, which, it is argued, can serve to reinforce the notion of the existence of ethnoracial groups with defined boundaries that inhere in social life. The book considers interviewing (including focus group interviewing) and case study research (including participant observation/ethnography) in terms of possibilities for moving beyond new forms of racism. Action research (defined by the understanding of an inextricable link between knowing and acting) is examined in-depth in terms of the hopes to "make a difference" at the moment of inquiry. Types of retroductive logic that are used to examine underlying structures that arguably unduly constrain people's life chances and render human relationships inhumane are also explored. The book draws together the different arguments; and it proposes ways in which the design of research into new racism can better approached as well as ways in which dialogue around processes of inquiry and the products thereof can be better fostered. Suggestions for nurturing humane social relationships that provide for transcultural meaning-making are threaded through the text.

In this book I have concentrated on drawing attention to various conceptions of accountability that might be brought to bear in judging the practice of social research. Much of the book is organized around making explicit the assumptions that influence what counts as "proper" research in society, including assumptions about how social inquirers might be held accountable. My focus is on reviewing discourses around the practice of "professional" inquiry, with a view to reconsidering the way in which people create expectations for accountable social inquiry. My focus hereon is related to my concern that the manner in which judgments about researchers' accountability are made, is not without social consequences for our way of living in society. I have approached the issues by beginning with a discussion of tenets of the position called "positivism" (so named by certain proponents), and by considering the view on accountability that is implied by adherence to these tenets. Briefly expressed, positivist argumentation suggests that researchers are required to "do science" in a manner that warrants their being considered, indeed, scientists. I use my discussion of accountability as seen within positivist argumentation to explicate ways in which alternative positions have arisen as ways of treating accountability issues. Through my way of comparing the various positions, I hope to provide some indication of the complexity ofethical and accountability issues in social inquiry.