Academic Division 07

Social, Economic & Behavioral Sciences

Examining how people, institutions, economies, and societies change—and how evidence can support better decisions.

07 / 08

São Paulo cityscape photographed from the Altino Arantes building.

This division encompasses economics, sociology, political science, law, anthropology, psychology, demography, education, communication, management, public administration, and development studies. It supports methodological pluralism and context-sensitive scholarship.

This division investigates how people, institutions, economies, laws, organisations, and communities shape one another over time. It brings together explanatory, interpretive, experimental, historical, and comparative approaches rather than imposing one model of social science. Research may address inequality, productivity, public administration, democracy, justice, migration, education, behaviour, communication, work, organisations, and development. The division regards context as part of evidence: concepts and indicators must be tested against linguistic, cultural, territorial, and institutional realities. It values transparent methods, ethical research with human participants, responsible use of administrative and digital data, and communication that distinguishes descriptive findings from normative judgment.

Fields and scholarly sections

A broad disciplinary home with clear centres of expertise

Economics and developmentSociology and demographyPolitical science and public policyLaw and justicePsychology and behavioral scienceAnthropologyEducation and communicationManagement and public administration

Scope and intellectual field

A disciplinary home broad enough for discovery and precise enough for judgment

Within Social, Economic & Behavioral Sciences, fields such as Economics and development, Sociology and demography, Political science and public policy, Law and justice are treated as connected areas of inquiry rather than isolated labels. The division gives specialists a recognizable home while making room for new combinations of theory, observation, experiment, computation, design, interpretation, and professional practice. Its role is not to prescribe one intellectual school, but to make standards of competence visible and to ensure that interdisciplinary work remains answerable to the disciplines on which it relies.

Research design and evidence

Questions determine methods and claims remain proportionate to evidence

A serious research programme begins by defining the object of inquiry, the relevant scale, the state of existing knowledge, and the form of evidence capable of changing a conclusion. Depending on the field, that may require experiments, longitudinal observation, archival interpretation, mathematical modelling, fieldwork, qualitative inquiry, engineering validation, comparative analysis, or a deliberate combination of approaches. The division expects methods to be described clearly enough for informed scrutiny and limitations to remain visible throughout interpretation and communication.

Research connected to Latin America should also explain place, history, institutions, language, ecology, and unequal access where these conditions shape the evidence. Regional relevance does not lower disciplinary standards; it often requires more exact contextual reasoning. Comparative or international work should identify what can legitimately be generalized, what remains specific, whose knowledge is represented, and how data, credit, responsibility, and long-term stewardship are distributed among collaborators.

Contribution across the Academy

Deep expertise becomes more useful when its boundaries and connections are understood

It brings human behavior, institutions, inequality, governance, and social change into the Academy’s response to complex challenges.

Across the Academy, the division can convene peer review, identify reliable expertise, formulate research questions, mentor emerging scholars, and test the disciplinary foundations of shared projects. It may contribute to evidence reviews, methods notes, comparative studies, scholarly dialogues, or carefully governed public explanations. Any output should name its authors and reviewers, state the route by which it was developed, distinguish consensus from disagreement, and avoid suggesting institutional authority beyond the mandate actually granted.

Questions shaping the scholarly agenda

The division advances through questions that connect discovery evidence and consequence

Which institutions expand or constrain opportunity, trust, productivity, rights, and social mobility?

How do inequality, demographic change, migration, and territorial difference shape development?

How do people make decisions under uncertainty, and how are choices influenced by organisations, media, and norms?

What strengthens democratic governance, administrative capability, justice, and peaceful pluralism?

Research practice and standards

Methods must be appropriate evidence must be inspectable and limits must remain visible

The division supports methodological pluralism within rigorous disciplinary standards. Choice of method should follow the research question; claims should remain proportionate to evidence; and collaboration should make responsibilities, data stewardship, authorship, uncertainty, and conflicts of interest explicit.

Methods and evidence

Surveys, administrative data, econometrics, and causal inference
Interviews, ethnography, case study, and participatory research
Experiments, behavioural methods, network analysis, and computational social science
Historical, legal, institutional, and cross-country comparison

Connections across the Academy

Climate adaptation, natural-resource governance, and just transitions
Health behaviour, systems, education, and inequality
Digital transformation, labour, rights, and algorithmic governance
Language, memory, identity, ethics, and cultural interpretation

Contribution to the Academy

It brings human behavior, institutions, inequality, governance, and social change into the Academy’s response to complex challenges.

See the Academy’s shared research priorities

In depth

Explaining social patterns without losing their context

Social inquiry often begins with an apparently familiar word: trust, opportunity, productivity, participation, or wellbeing. Before measuring it, researchers must ask what the concept includes and whose experience it describes. Two surveys may use the same label for different phenomena, while the same question may carry different meanings across languages or institutions. A strong investigation makes these conceptual choices visible and explains why its observations provide evidence about the particular social relationship it seeks to understand.

Explanation also depends on the level of analysis. Household choices are shaped by resources and expectations, but they occur within organizations, markets, and rules. A pattern observed between municipalities does not automatically explain differences between individuals inside them. Likewise, an account of individual behaviour cannot alone establish how an institution changes over time. Research advances by specifying the connections between levels and testing mechanisms that could generate the observed pattern, including plausible explanations that initially challenge the researcher's preferred account.

Read the complete essay