Difference between revisions of "Theme:2646823b-4603-4305-aff9-32849fff0a4c"
m |
|||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
*Analyse the dilemma in more detail, e.g. by [[Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd|moral case deliberation]] | *Analyse the dilemma in more detail, e.g. by [[Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd|moral case deliberation]] | ||
*Is there a rearrangement of practices that can remove the tragedy (Hegel’s question)? | *Is there a rearrangement of practices that can remove the tragedy (Hegel’s question)? | ||
| − | |Has Detail='''Inventory of common situations which involve dilemmas''' | + | |Has Detail= '' |
| + | '''Inventory of common situations which involve dilemmas''' | ||
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" | {{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" | ||
{{!}} width="200" valign="top"{{!}}'''Dilemma''' | {{!}} width="200" valign="top"{{!}}'''Dilemma''' | ||
Revision as of 08:58, 9 September 2021
ThemesDilemmas in daily practice
What is this about?
Many researchers encounter moral conflicts and moral dilemmas in their day-to-day practice. Most research on scientific dilemmas concentrates on questionable research practices or even misconduct suspicions[1]. Few publications address the prevalence and nature of common dilemmas directly.
- ↑ John, Leslie K., George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec. "Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling." Psychological science 23.5 (2012): 524-532.
Why is this important?
The most important characteristic of a dilemma is that either choice is ‘costly’. In choosing between unfavourable outcomes, there is no simple solution which prevents a toll to yourself or others. Such a toll can vary substantially, for example between a physical effect (a harm to animals), a negative effect on the environment (radiation exposure) or psychological tensions and moral distress . Being mindful of such dilemmas in daily practice is important, because of the cognitive bias that might develop because of it and reflection brings the opportunity to change a situation.
Our own bias
Our attitude towards the dilemmas we face can change over time, because of our past decisions (cognitive dissonance theory [1][2]). Coping strategies such as trivialization, self-affirmation, denial of responsibility and rationalization might further decrease the dissonance in a dilemma. Surprisingly little research has been performed on repetitive exposure[3]. However, it is not hard to imagine that, over the long run[4][5], scientists feel less distress after repeatedly facing the same dilemma. As such, common dilemmas can result in ‘common practice’ where less attention is paid to them.
Designing a system which gives rise to fewer dilemmas
If such a common practice is actually a questionable research practice or worse, the original dilemma can indicate a deeper or broader problem for science and society. Acknowledging these dilemmas is therefore important, in order to understand where problems stem from. As Nussbaum advocates[6], to recognize the real structure of a situation, as ‘Tragedy is rarely just tragedy’. The recognition of a dilemma can promote a qualitative analysis. For example, by moral case deliberation in which the moral distress of an individual is directly addressed. Or a more technical analyses, for example by taking a ‘game theory’ approach[7] . In essence, addressing Hegel’s question: ‘is there a rearrangement of our practices that can remove the tragedy?’ which might help to find a more beneficial resolution for science as a whole.
- ↑ Festinger, Leon. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Vol. 2. Stanford university press, 1957.
- ↑ Graham, R. "Theory of cognitive dissonance as it pertains to morality." Journal of Scientific Psychology 29 (2007).
- ↑ McGrath, April. "Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction." Social and Personality Psychology Compass 11.12 (2017): e12362.
- ↑ The costs of tragedy: Some moral limits of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies 29: 1005–1036
- ↑ Dalmolin, Graziele de Lima, et al. "Moral distress and Burnout syndrome: are there relationships between these phenomena in nursing workers? 1." Revista latino-americana de enfermagem 22 (2014): 35-42.
- ↑ The costs of tragedy: Some moral limits of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies 29: 1005–1036
- ↑ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/
For whom is this important?
What are the best practices?
The presence of a dilemma’s indicates that there is no universal hierarchy of values. A guideline or algorithm cannot simply resolve the dilemma. But, a dilemma (‘tragedy’) can be the start of reflection and improvement. Depending on the severity of the situation and the impact of your choice, consider the following:
- Informal discussion with peers
- Consult your supervisor or mentor
- Check a code of conduct or guideline
- Consult a confidentiality advisor
- Discuss it with ‘neutral outsiders’, friends or family
- Analyse the dilemma in more detail, e.g. by moral case deliberation
- Is there a rearrangement of practices that can remove the tragedy (Hegel’s question)?
In Detail
Inventory of common situations which involve dilemmas
| Dilemma | Value A | Value B |
| Co-authorship
|
intellectual contribution | collegiality |
| Openly providing your data | Verification | Rebuttal |
| Paper writing | Readability | Completeness |
Inventory of common values & principles involved in dilemmas
| Personal | Scientific | Technological | Professional |
| Honesty | Accuracy | Utility | Mentorship |
| Curiosity | Completeness | Collaboration | |
| Trustworthiness | Consistency | ||
| Respect | Objectivity | ||
| Autonomy | Auditability | ||
| Collegiality | Universality | ||
| Precision | |||
| Verification |
The Embassy editorial team contributed to this theme. Latest contribution was Sep 28, 2021
