我不相信研究的中立性。好吗?研究人员对科学价值的态度。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-11-02 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2423358
Jacopo Ambrosj, Hugh Desmond, Kris Dierickx
{"title":"我不相信研究的中立性。好吗?研究人员对科学价值的态度。","authors":"Jacopo Ambrosj, Hugh Desmond, Kris Dierickx","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2423358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Codes of conduct for research integrity provide ambivalent guidance on the role that the values of society as well as political and economic interests can or should play in scientific research. The development of clearer guidance on this matter in the future should consider the attitudes of researchers.<b>Methods</b>: We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with holders of grants from the European Research Council and performed an inductive thematic analysis thereof.<b>Results</b>: We developed 4 themes reflecting 4 main attitudes of researchers toward the interactions between values and science: <i>awareness</i>, <i>concern</i>, <i>confidence</i>, and <i>embracement</i>. While interviewees recognized that science is not completely value-free (<i>awareness</i>), they still seemed to hold on to the so-called value-free ideal of science as a professional norm to minimize bias (<i>concern</i>, <i>confidence</i>). However, they showed awareness of the beneficial influence that values like diversity can have on research (<i>embracement</i>).<b>Conclusions</b>: Codes such as the <i>European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity</i> tend not to problematize the tensions that emerge from having the value-free ideal of science as a norm and being guided by the values of society. Our findings suggest the time might be ripe for research integrity codes to address more directly the value issues intrinsic to science.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'I don't believe in the neutrality of research. OK?' Mapping researchers' attitudes toward values in science.\",\"authors\":\"Jacopo Ambrosj, Hugh Desmond, Kris Dierickx\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2024.2423358\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Codes of conduct for research integrity provide ambivalent guidance on the role that the values of society as well as political and economic interests can or should play in scientific research. The development of clearer guidance on this matter in the future should consider the attitudes of researchers.<b>Methods</b>: We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with holders of grants from the European Research Council and performed an inductive thematic analysis thereof.<b>Results</b>: We developed 4 themes reflecting 4 main attitudes of researchers toward the interactions between values and science: <i>awareness</i>, <i>concern</i>, <i>confidence</i>, and <i>embracement</i>. While interviewees recognized that science is not completely value-free (<i>awareness</i>), they still seemed to hold on to the so-called value-free ideal of science as a professional norm to minimize bias (<i>concern</i>, <i>confidence</i>). However, they showed awareness of the beneficial influence that values like diversity can have on research (<i>embracement</i>).<b>Conclusions</b>: Codes such as the <i>European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity</i> tend not to problematize the tensions that emerge from having the value-free ideal of science as a norm and being guided by the values of society. Our findings suggest the time might be ripe for research integrity codes to address more directly the value issues intrinsic to science.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2423358\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2423358","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:研究诚信行为准则就社会价值观以及政治和经济利益在科学研究中可以或应该发挥的作用提供了模棱两可的指导。今后在制定更明确的指导意见时,应考虑研究人员的态度:方法:我们对欧洲研究理事会资助的研究人员进行了 24 次半结构式访谈,并对访谈结果进行了归纳式主题分析:我们提出了 4 个主题,反映了研究人员对价值观与科学之间相互作用的 4 种主要态度:认识、关注、信心和接受。虽然受访者认识到科学并非完全无价值(认识),但他们似乎仍然坚持所谓的科学无价值理想,将其作为一种职业规范,以尽量减少偏见(关注、信心)。不过,他们也意识到多样性等价值观对研究的有益影响(接受):结论:《欧洲科研诚信行为准则》等准则往往没有解决将无价值的科学理想作为准则与以社会价值观为指导之间的矛盾。我们的研究结果表明,研究诚信准则更直接地解决科学内在价值问题的时机可能已经成熟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
'I don't believe in the neutrality of research. OK?' Mapping researchers' attitudes toward values in science.

Background: Codes of conduct for research integrity provide ambivalent guidance on the role that the values of society as well as political and economic interests can or should play in scientific research. The development of clearer guidance on this matter in the future should consider the attitudes of researchers.Methods: We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with holders of grants from the European Research Council and performed an inductive thematic analysis thereof.Results: We developed 4 themes reflecting 4 main attitudes of researchers toward the interactions between values and science: awareness, concern, confidence, and embracement. While interviewees recognized that science is not completely value-free (awareness), they still seemed to hold on to the so-called value-free ideal of science as a professional norm to minimize bias (concern, confidence). However, they showed awareness of the beneficial influence that values like diversity can have on research (embracement).Conclusions: Codes such as the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity tend not to problematize the tensions that emerge from having the value-free ideal of science as a norm and being guided by the values of society. Our findings suggest the time might be ripe for research integrity codes to address more directly the value issues intrinsic to science.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
期刊最新文献
Open minds, tied hands: Awareness, behavior, and reasoning on open science and irresponsible research behavior. The case for compensating peer reviewers: A response to Moher and Vieira Armond. Incorporating implicit bias into research integrity education: Response to 'Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education'. The core epistemic responsibilities of universities: Results from a Delphi study. Extent of publishing in predatory journals by academics in higher education institutions in Zimbabwe: A case study of a university.
×
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