Difference between revisions of "Theme:2646823b-4603-4305-aff9-32849fff0a4c"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations |Has Parent Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34 |Title=In daily practice |Is About=Many researchers encounter moral c...") |
|||
| (16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations | |Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations | ||
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34 | |Has Parent Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34 | ||
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=Dilemmas in daily practice |
| − | |Is 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<ref>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.</ref>. Few publications address the prevalence and nature of common dilemmas directly. | + | |Is 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<ref>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.</ref>. Few publications address the prevalence and nature of common dilemmas directly. Here, you can find examples of moral dilemma's in daily practice. |
| − | |Important Because=The most important characteristic of a dilemma is that either choice is | + | <references /> |
| + | |Important Because=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 own bias''' | ||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
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<ref>The costs of tragedy: Some moral limits of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies 29: 1005–1036</ref>, 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<ref>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/</ref> . 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<ref>The costs of tragedy: Some moral limits of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies 29: 1005–1036</ref>, 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<ref>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/</ref> . 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. | ||
| + | <references /> | ||
|Important For=Scientists; Policy makers | |Important For=Scientists; Policy makers | ||
|Has Best Practice=The presence of a dilemma’s indicates that there is no universal hierarchy of values. A guideline or algorithm cannot simply resolve the dilemma<ref>Danhof, M., et al. "Knowledge in Ferment." (2007).</ref>. 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: | |Has Best Practice=The presence of a dilemma’s indicates that there is no universal hierarchy of values. A guideline or algorithm cannot simply resolve the dilemma<ref>Danhof, M., et al. "Knowledge in Ferment." (2007).</ref>. 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 | + | *Informal discussion with peers |
| − | * Consult your supervisor or mentor | + | *Consult your supervisor or mentor |
| − | * Check a code of conduct or guideline | + | *Check a code of conduct or guideline |
| − | * Consult a confidentiality advisor | + | *Consult a confidentiality advisor |
| − | * Discuss it with ‘neutral outsiders’, friends or family | + | *Discuss it with ‘neutral outsiders’, friends or family |
| − | * 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=''' | + | <references /> |
| + | |Has Detail='''Examples 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''' |
| − | {{!}} width="200" valign="top" {{!}}'''Value A''' | + | {{!}} width="200" valign="top"{{!}}'''Value A''' |
| − | {{!}} width="200" valign="top" {{!}}'''Value B''' | + | {{!}} width="200" valign="top"{{!}}'''Value B''' |
{{!}}- | {{!}}- | ||
| − | {{!}} width="200" valign="top" {{!}}Co-authorship | + | {{!}} width="200" valign="top"{{!}}Co-authorship |
<br /> | <br /> | ||
| − | {{!}} width="200" valign="top" {{!}}intellectual contribution | + | {{!}} width="200" valign="top"{{!}}intellectual contribution |
| − | {{!}} width="200" valign="top" {{!}}collegiality | + | {{!}} width="200" valign="top"{{!}}collegiality |
{{!}}- | {{!}}- | ||
| − | {{!}} | + | {{!}}Sharing your data openly |
| − | + | {{!}}Verification & re-use | |
| − | + | {{!}}Rebuttal | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{!}}} | {{!}}} | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''Examples of common values & principles involved in dilemmas''' |
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" | {{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" | ||
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}'''Personal''' | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}'''Personal''' |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}'''Scientific''' | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scientific''' |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}'''Technological''' | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}'''Technological''' |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}'''Professional''' | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}'''Professional''' |
{{!}}- | {{!}}- | ||
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Honesty | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Honesty |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Accuracy | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Accuracy |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Utility | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Utility |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Mentorship | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Mentorship |
{{!}}- | {{!}}- | ||
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Curiosity | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Curiosity |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Completeness | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Completeness |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Collaboration | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Collaboration |
{{!}}- | {{!}}- | ||
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Trustworthiness | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Trustworthiness |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Consistency | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Consistency |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
{{!}}- | {{!}}- | ||
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Respect | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Respect |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Objectivity | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Objectivity |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
{{!}}- | {{!}}- | ||
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Autonomy | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Autonomy |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Auditability | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Auditability |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
{{!}}- | {{!}}- | ||
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Collegiality | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Collegiality |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Universality | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Universality |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
{{!}}- | {{!}}- | ||
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Precision | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Precision |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
{{!}}- | {{!}}- | ||
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}}Verification | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}Verification |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
| − | {{!}} width="120" valign="top" {{!}} | + | {{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}} |
{{!}}} | {{!}}} | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
Latest revision as of 08:58, 28 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. Here, you can find examples of moral dilemma's in daily practice.
- ↑ 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[1]. 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)?
- ↑ Danhof, M., et al. "Knowledge in Ferment." (2007).
In Detail
Examples of common situations which involve dilemmas
| Dilemma | Value A | Value B |
| Co-authorship
|
intellectual contribution | collegiality |
| Sharing your data openly | Verification & re-use | Rebuttal |
Examples 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
