Foxes who want to be hedgehogs: Is ethical pluralism possible in psychology's replication crisis?

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour Pub Date : 2022-03-20 DOI:10.1111/jtsb.12342
Paul Sullivan, John Ackroyd
{"title":"Foxes who want to be hedgehogs: Is ethical pluralism possible in psychology's replication crisis?","authors":"Paul Sullivan,&nbsp;John Ackroyd","doi":"10.1111/jtsb.12342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, we draw attention to public-private dilemmas among psychologists that make sense of the debates around the replication crisis, citation practices and networking practices. We argue that the values of justice and caring map onto the public sphere and private sphere respectively and create the horns of a dilemma for academics. While bureaucratic justice is a publicly revered value of modernity in psychological research that underpins ethics, validity, reliability and equality of opportunity, ‘caring’ is a more subtle value of traditionalism that runs in parallel and is detected only by our psychological practices. In particular, we argue that it is detected by practices such as disputes between the replicated and their replicators in replication studies (understood as a dramatic counter reality) as to who is more ‘careless’ with procedure; citation (including the self-care of self-citation) as thanksgiving and incantation of powerful others in enchantment rituals, and the system of professional indebtedness that accrues in ‘kinship’ networks – where kinship is understood broadly as adoption into a research group and its network. The clashes between these values can lead to a sense of hypocrisy and irony in academic life, as incommensurate values split between private and public expression. From this position, we delve into Isaiah Berlin's work on incommensurate values to suggest that ethical pluralism, involving more public recognition of the equal but different ethical demands of these values can help overcome these everyday dilemmas in the public sphere.</p>","PeriodicalId":47646,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jtsb.12342","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jtsb.12342","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, we draw attention to public-private dilemmas among psychologists that make sense of the debates around the replication crisis, citation practices and networking practices. We argue that the values of justice and caring map onto the public sphere and private sphere respectively and create the horns of a dilemma for academics. While bureaucratic justice is a publicly revered value of modernity in psychological research that underpins ethics, validity, reliability and equality of opportunity, ‘caring’ is a more subtle value of traditionalism that runs in parallel and is detected only by our psychological practices. In particular, we argue that it is detected by practices such as disputes between the replicated and their replicators in replication studies (understood as a dramatic counter reality) as to who is more ‘careless’ with procedure; citation (including the self-care of self-citation) as thanksgiving and incantation of powerful others in enchantment rituals, and the system of professional indebtedness that accrues in ‘kinship’ networks – where kinship is understood broadly as adoption into a research group and its network. The clashes between these values can lead to a sense of hypocrisy and irony in academic life, as incommensurate values split between private and public expression. From this position, we delve into Isaiah Berlin's work on incommensurate values to suggest that ethical pluralism, involving more public recognition of the equal but different ethical demands of these values can help overcome these everyday dilemmas in the public sphere.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
想要成为刺猬的狐狸:伦理多元化在心理学的复制危机中可能吗?
在本文中,我们提请注意心理学家之间的公私困境,这些困境使围绕复制危机、引用实践和网络实践的辩论变得有意义。我们认为,正义和关怀的价值分别映射到公共领域和私人领域,并为学术界创造了一个两难的境地。虽然在心理学研究中,官僚公正是一种受公众尊敬的现代性价值,它支撑着伦理、有效性、可靠性和机会平等,但“关怀”是一种更微妙的传统主义价值,它与之并行,只有我们的心理学实践才能发现。特别是,我们认为,它可以通过复制研究中被复制者与其复制者之间的争议(被理解为戏剧性的反现实)等实践来检测,即谁对程序更“粗心”;引用(包括自我引用的自我照顾)作为感恩和魔法仪式中强大的其他人的咒语,以及在“亲属关系”网络中积累的专业债务系统-亲属关系被广泛理解为接受研究小组及其网络。这些价值观之间的冲突可能导致学术生活中的虚伪和讽刺感,因为不相称的价值观在私人和公共表达之间分裂。从这一立场出发,我们深入研究以赛亚·伯林关于不相称价值观的研究,提出伦理多元化,包括更多的公众承认这些价值观的平等但不同的伦理要求,可以帮助克服公共领域中的这些日常困境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour publishes original theoretical and methodological articles that examine the links between social structures and human agency embedded in behavioural practices. The Journal is truly unique in focusing first and foremost on social behaviour, over and above any disciplinary or local framing of such behaviour. In so doing, it embraces a range of theoretical orientations and, by requiring authors to write for a wide audience, the Journal is distinctively interdisciplinary and accessible to readers world-wide in the fields of psychology, sociology and philosophy.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Post‐Legitimate Society Issue Information Special Issue on Realist Complexity: An Introduction Towards autistic flow theory: A non‐pathologising conceptual approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1