Difference between revisions of "Theme:2646823b-4603-4305-aff9-32849fff0a4c"
m |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*'''Our own bias''' | *'''Our own bias''' | ||
| − | |||
Our attitude towards the dilemmas we face can change over time, because of our past decisions ([[Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed|cognitive dissonance theory]] ). 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. However, it is not hard to imagine that, over the long run, 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. | Our attitude towards the dilemmas we face can change over time, because of our past decisions ([[Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed|cognitive dissonance theory]] ). 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. However, it is not hard to imagine that, over the long run, 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''' | *'''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, 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 [[Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd|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 . 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. | 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, 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 [[Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd|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 . 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. | ||
|Important For=Scientists; Policy makers | |Important For=Scientists; Policy makers | ||
| Line 24: | Line 22: | ||
*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 09:02, 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 ). 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. However, it is not hard to imagine that, over the long run, 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
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
